Allahabad High Court
Seth Bashir Ahmad Bhatti vs Addl. Distt. Judge And Anr. on 26 May, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007(1)AWC230
Author: Rakesh Sharma
Bench: Rakesh Sharma
JUDGMENT Rakesh Sharma, J.
1. Heard Sri U.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant and Sri P.L. Misra, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, landlady.
2. The petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 22.10.2005, passed by the Additional District Judge, Lucknow, revisional court, allowing the revision preferred by the landlord under Section 18 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction), Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972"). The landlord had challenged the order passed by the prescribed authority on 29.10.1988, refusing to release the premises in dispute and declaring the vacancy. The revisional court vide order dated 22.10.2005 has declared the premises as vacant and the tenant-petitioher has been directed to vacate the premises and handover the peaceful possession to the landlady. The review petition preferred by the petitioner-tenant which was dismissed on 3.3.2006, is also under challenge in this writ petition.
3. It emerges from record that the owner of the building known as 'Khanna Building' situate at 92/65 Aminabad Park east in the city of Lucknow had in ducted the father of the petitioner, late Sri Seth KhairuddinAhmad as tenant in the year 1930. The premises in the tenancy of Seth KhairuddinAhmad consisted of residential portion on the first floor and commercial premises on the ground floor where he was doing cycle business in the name and style of Punjab Cycle Works. Sri Seth KhairuddinAhmad had died on 16.12.1960, leaving behind four sons including the petitioner and nine daughteRs. The sons of Seth KhairuddinAhmad, on the death of their father, claimed tenancy rights of the premises by inheritance. Two landladies, Smt. Vilaito Devi Khanna and Smt. Uma Tandon (present landlady) had filed an application for release of the said premises on 4.4.1985 before the A.D.M., Lucknow, the prescribed authority, under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Through this application, the release of the shop and residential portion of the building was sought under Sections 12 and 16 read with Section 25 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
4. The reasons for release as indicated in the application are that the original landlord, Seth Bashir Ahmad Bhatti (petitioner-tenant in this writ petition), illegally and unlawfully, without seeking written permission of the landladies and the Rent Control Officer, i.e., District Magistrate, had sub-let the premises. It was alleged that in September, 1974, a partnership firm was formed. Sri Moti Lal Agarwal, Sri Madan Lal Agarwal and Daud Ahmad, strangers to the family of the tenant, were in ducted as partneRs. The name of the firm was changed from Punjab Cycle Works to Punjab Cycle and Automobiles. The business under the new name and style commenced in September, 1974. It was also alleged in the application for release that the tenant had sub-let three shops, facing north in his occupation to one Daud Ahmad in September, 1974 where he started tailoring business. These new tenants, Sri Moti Lal Agarwal, Sri Madan Lal Agarwal and Daud Ahmad, as partners of the new firm and in the new name and style, commenced the business in the shops on ground floor of the premises, 'Khanna Building' situate at 92/65 Aminabad Park east in the city of Lucknow. Thus, the accommodation in question became vacant under Sections 12 and 25 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
5. The landlady, Smt. Uma Tandon had demonstrated before the prescribed authority that she had bona fldely required the accommodation to settle her two sons, Anirudh Tandon aged about 30 years and Sri Ashutosh Tandon aged about 18 yeaRs. Sri Anirudh Tandon started wholesale/retail allopathic medicines business in a rented shop measuring 10 x 12 fts. at Nadan Mahal Road. Lucknow. At the relevant time, he was paying rent @ Rs. 450 p.m. to the landlord. This shop was out of place for selling medicines. The business of her son Anirudh Tandon has enormously in creased. The shop in his tenancy was too small for accommodating and expanding his business. However, in the supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has indicated that Anirudh Tandon is doing business from his residence, House No. 508/69, New Hyderabad, Lucknow. The landlady before this Court has insisted that new Hyderabad is a residential area and is not fit for wholesale medicine trade for which Aminabad Park is the right and most suitable place. The landlady has reiterated her plea in the supplementary counter-affidavit and other documents that wholesale allopathic medicine is now carried out in Aminabad Park area. There are several shops, establishments, which are involved in this business in the said area. The customers from adjoining districts rather all over the State make their purchases from the medicine market situate at Aminabad Park. By filing a supplementary counter-affidavit, the landlady has demonstrated before the Court that her second son Ashutosh Tandon also wants to establish/start his own business of wholesale market of chemicals in Aminabad area. Under the compelling circumstances, he is occupied in service and the elder son is carrying out his business from the residential area. The landlady wanted the release of the premises for the purpose of business and residence of her two sons. She has urged that her need is bona fide and genuine.
6. The application for release was contested by the tenant on the ground that partnership firm, in which, Sri Moti Lal Agarwal, Sri Madan Lal Agarwal and Daud Ahmad, was dissolved in the year 1977 before advent of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The point of comparative hardship was raised by the tenant. It was indicated in the objections that the tenant had left India in November, 1972 for about 14 months. However, to continue the business, he sought assistance of other partners, Sri Moti Lal Agarwal, Sri Madan Lal Agarwal and his own brother Daud Ahmad. He has denied that the premises could be deemed vacant under the provisions of Sections 12 and 25 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
7. The record further reveals that Sri N.H. Zaidi, Additional City Magistrate, (First Rent Control Officer), has rejected the application for release on 29.10.1988. The prescribed authority had recorded his conclusions as following:
i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd nkmn vgen] lsB [kS:n~nhu vgen ejgwe ds iq= gSa mudk fookfnr Hkou ,oa nqdku esa fdjk;snkjh dk gd ,oa fgLlk gS os voS/kkfud fdjk;snkj ugh ekus tk ldrs gSa A tgka rd eksfryky ,oa enu yky dk lEcU/k gS mlus vf/kfu;e 13] 1972 ds iwoZ lk:>snkjh fd;k gS blfy;s /kkjk 12 ¼2½ ds vUrxZr fjDrrk ugha curh A eSaus i=koyh dk xEHkhjrkiwoZd ifj'kkhyu fd;/k rFkk fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa dks foLr`r i ls lquus ds mijkUr bl fu"d"kZ ij igWapk gwWa fd lk>snkjhukek dks nskus ls ,slk dgha izrhr ugha gksrk gS fd foi{kh ua0 2 lsB olhj vgen HkV~Bh us vfkfu;e dh /kkjk 12 ¼2½ ,oa /kkjk 25 dk mYya?ku fd;k gks A pwafd lk>snkjh ,DV 13 vkQ 1972 ds iwoZ dh Fkh vr% fjDrrk fdlh Hkh n'kk esa ugha curh gSA bl eqdnesa esa loZizFke fjDrrk ds fcUnq ij gh fu.kZ; djuk rHkh fueZqdr izkFkZuki= ij gh fopkj fd;k tkuk lEHko gks ldrk gSA fookfnr vkokl foi{kh ua0 2 ds firk Lo0 lsB [kS:n~nhu vgen dh fdjk;snkjh esa lu~ 1930 ls jgh gSa blfy;s muds ejus ds i'pkr mudh csok] ,oa iq= ,oa iqfr;ka lHkh lgfdjk;snkj gks x;s gSaA vr% nkmn vgen tks fd lxs iq= gSa dk v/;klu fdlh Hkh n'kk esa voS/kkfud ugha gks ldrk vr% fookfnr vkokl esa fjDrrk ugha curh gS blfy;s izkFkZuki= fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA
8. This order was assailed by filing a revision which was allowed by the revisional court, i.e., A.D.J., Lucknow on 21.1.1991. The petitioner-tenant, Bashir Ahmad Bhatti filed writ petition No. 23 of 1991 and Ors. in this Court which was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 11.11.1993. The operative portion of the judgment and order dated 11.11.1993, is quoted below:
Inview of the discussion hereinabove the writ petition succeeds. The judgment dated 21.1.1991, Annexure-1, passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Lucknow deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The IVth Addl. District Judge, Lucknow is directed to decide the rent revision No. 19 of 1988 afresh, keeping in view the findings and observations made hereinabove. in the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs.
9. The landlord filed a Civil Appeal No. 5934 of 1994, Smt. Uma Tandon v. Bashir Ahmad Bhatti, in the Supreme Court of India which was dismissed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the Court had not been persuaded to take a view different than the one taken by the High Court. The appeal was dismissed with the direction to the revisional court to dispose of the revision petition expeditiously. in compliance of the judgment and order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India dated 18.2.1998, the revision which was, filed in the year 1988 was finally disposed of by Additional District Judge, Lucknow, revislonal court, on 22.10.2005. The revisional court had ordered for release of the premises in favour of the landlady. The petitioner, Bashir Ahmad Bhatti was directed to vacate the disputed premises and handover the possession to the landlady within one month from the date of the order. A review petition preferred against this order, has also been dismissed on the ground of maintainability on 3.3.2006.
10. Sri U.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner has led the Court to the facts of the case as already discussed by the courts below, this Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India. This Court while disposing of the Writ Petition No. 23 of 1991, had considered the facts of the case in detail and directed the revisional court to decide the rent revision No. 19 of 1988, afresh. Most of the facts, regarding ownership of the premises, tenancy of the litigation between the parties, various judgments etc., are admitted to the parties. Sri U.K. Srivastava has further submitted that the landlady was not entitled to invoke the provisions of Sections 12 and 25 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. He has also led the Court to various dates to demonstrate that the partnership deed was executed on 1.1.1972, while the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was enforced on 15.7.1972. It has been admitted by Sri U.K. Srivastava that petitioner-tenant had in ducted Sri Moti Lal Agarwal, Sri Madan Lal Agarwal as partners to the firm and the firm was carrying on its business in the name and style of Punjab Cycle and Automobiles. He has submitted that assessment orders of sales-tax and income-tax were produced before the concerned forum to show that the partnership business became subject to payment of tax during the financial year 1974-75. It was stretched before the Court that the landlady did not raise any grievance about alleged subletting by induction of partneRs.
11. As per learned Counsel for the petitioner, the landlady gave ample consent for in ducting, Sri Madan Lal Agarwal and Sri Moti Lal Agarwal as partners in the firm. The registration certificate dated 21.4.1976 granted by Registrar, Firms, U.P. Lucknow also discloses that the partnership business was entered on 1.1.1972. However, the registration certificate was Issued on 21.4.1976. The release application was rightly rejected by the prescribed authority on 29.10.1988.
12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of the revisional authority on several grounds that the revisional court has committed manifest error of law and Jurisdiction in invoking the Sections 12 and 16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. "Where the partnership business was entered on 1.1.1972, prior to enforcement of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 w.e.f. 15.7.1972, the present case is not covered by these sections and there was no deemed vacancy in the premises. The revisional court has travelled from the scope of revisional jurisdiction. The observations of the High Court have been ignored. The Court ought not to have recorded specific findings of fact after reappraisal and reassessment of the evidence of the parties brought on record by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The revisional court even after having come to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial court are erroneous. It has no jurisdiction to substitute Its own findings of fact. After reversing the findings of the trial court, the case could have been remanded back to the trial court for recording fresh findings of facts. The revisional court has overridden the findings recorded by the High Court by taking aid of other judgments of High Court on this point. The order of the High Court dated 18.2.1998 had the effect of res judicata between the parties that the appropriate declaration of the vacancy, the premises in dispute could not be released in favour of the landlady. The need of the landlady was not bona fide and genuine. On mere desire of the landlady, the premises cannot be vacated.
13. Sri Umesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his submissions.
(1) Ram Bhqjan and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation 2001 (19) LCD 906;
(2) Smt. Urmila Devi v. 2nd Additional District Judge 1999 (17) LCD 270 : 1998 (3) AWC 2.161 (NOC) (3) Dharmendra Kumar u. 4th Additional District Judge, 1996 (14) LCD 322: 1995 (3) AWC 2.11 (NOC);
(4) Sri Hori Lal v. 11th Additional District Judge 1995 (13) LCD 301;
(5) Bhanwar Singh Jat v. Collector and District Magistrate 1984 (2) ARC 310 (DB);
(6) M.L. Dalela v. 6th Additional District Judge 1996 (14) LCD 417;
(7) Har Prasad u. Illrd Additional District Judge. 1982 ACJ 506;
(8) Smt. Keshakr Bai v. District Judge 1980 AWC 385 (FB) and (9) Nand Kishore Marwah v. Smt. Samundri Devi 1987 (5) LCD 442 (SC) : 1987 (2) AWC 1261 (SC).
14. Sri P.L. Misra, learned Counsel for the landlady, Smt. Uma Tandon has opposed the writ petition.
15. It has been submitted that the disputed questions of facts have already been considered by the courts below and no interference is now required by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The landlady is an old lady of 71 years' age. The other co-landlady, Smt. Vilaito Devi Khanna had died in the year 1995 in anticipation of disposal of her release application for releasing the premises in question which was filed before the prescribed authority in the year 1985. The landlady is waiting for the last 20 years for vacation of the premises. The petitioner-tenant had admittedly in ducted Sri Moti Lal Agarwal, Madan Lal Agarwal as partners, who were not his family membeRs. The partnership business, firm was registered and they were doing business when the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was in force, i.e., on 15.7.1972. This new partnership was carrying on business in the name and style of Punjab Cycle and Automobiles.
16. The learned Counsel for the landlady Laid much stress that Seth Bashlr Ahmad Bhatti did not obtain her permission nor of the District Magistrate, Rent Control Officer, Lucknow, while subletting the premises and in ducting non-family members, Madan Lal Agarweil and Moti Lal Agarwal to carry on business.a Detailed submissions were made in the release application but they were not properly appreciated by the prescribed authority while dealing with the application. Admittedly, the partnership firm with subtenants, Madan Lal Agarwal and Moti Lal Agarwal, was established on 1.1.1972 and this became the registered firm in the eye of law on 21.4.1976, when it was registered by the Registrar of the Firms. The brother of tenant-petitioner, Sri Daud Ahmad was sublet three shops by the petitioner. The record of the in come tax assessment for the years 1975-76, also indicates that the partnership firm having Moti Lal Agarwal and Madan Lal Agarwal, was doing business, in the assessment relating to the sale tax, the petitioner's name alongwith Moti Lal Agarwal and Madan Lal Agarwal, has been shown as members of the firm, M/s. Punjab Cycles and Automobiles. This firm was registered with the sales tax department on 1.10.1974. in the certificate issued by the Trade Tax Officer, Lucknow on 19.11.1974. it was indicated that the said firm had four partneRs. The business was being conducted from the premises owned by the respondent No. 2, landlady. The first purchase was indicated to be on 30.9.1974. These documents itself indicate that the business was being conducted even after enforcement of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 w.e.f. 15.7.1972. The Rent Control inspector's report was also shown to the Court by the learned Counsel for the landlady. The landlady learnt about this new partnership firm and the partners, in the year 1985 and she immediately submitted an application for release of the premises. in fact, the vacancy had already occurred when unlawful members were engaged as partners on 1.1.1972 and on 21.4.1976, when the firm was registered giving a legal firm and title as per the provisions of Registration of Firms Act.
17. Sri P.L. Misra has further submitted that the prescribed authority's order passed on 29.10.1988, was a non-speaking order. It did not even consider the facts of bona fide and genuine need of the landlady which were indicated in the release application.
18. The law is settled that when the landlord/landlady makes an application for release, the bona fide need of the landlord/landlady is to be appreciated. He has further submitted that the tenant has made no efforts to find out any alternative accommodation in the vicinity of Aminabad to shift his business. Several new shops, complexes were constructed in Aminabad, Loutche Road and other adjoining areas, where the petitioner could have found place during these 20 years.
19. As per Sri P.L. Misra, learned Counsel, Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in its Judgment dated 18.2.1998 had directed the revlsional court to dispose of the revision petition expeditlously. The operative order of this Court passed on 11.11.93 in W.P. No. 23 of 1991, is clear that the revisional court should decide the revision afresh. The revisional court has rightly considered the material on record afresh and has given detailed findings on the point of fact and law raised before it. The tenant has ceased to be under Section 12 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and as such, he has no right to interfere with in the release application. The matter was between the landlady and the Rent Control Officer, i.e., District Magistrate, Lucknow. Sri P.L. Misra has Laid stress that both the Courts, i.e., Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Court, have not finally decided the controversy raised by the parties, i.e., the landlady and the tenant, rather the case was remanded back by both the Courts to be heard and disposed of by the revisional authority. The Addl. District Judge has exercised its revisional powers under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The prescribed authority issued a release order under Sections 16 and 18 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Section 19 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been amended which provides that release can be sought by the landlord/landlady for occupation of himself/herself. The revisional court has power of reversing and revaluation also under the scheme of the Act as per the decisions of this Court in Phanish Chandra Tripathi v. 1st Additional District Judge, Allahabad and Ors. 1983 ARC 58 and Himmat Bahadur Singh v. Xllth Additional District Judge, Kanpur and Ors. 1984 (1) ARC 433. Thus, the revisional authority has rightly ordered for release of the premises. There is a prohibition of sub-letting by the tenant under Sections 12 and 25 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The petitioner has ceased to be a tenant in the eye of law and the Court cannot shut its eyes to the statutory provisions brought before it by the parties.
20. The earlier order was quashed as there was no option except to decide the matter on the basis of total material on record and appreciating the facts and law vide Harish Tandon v. Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad U.P. and Ors. . It was a clear case where unlawful members, i.e., Madan Lal Agarwal and Moti Lal Agarwal. were admitted as partners and a new firm was established to run the business from the premises in dispute. These facts could not have been ignored.
21. As per Sri P.L. Misra, his case was squarely covered vide Judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Harish Tandon (supra) and Basant Lal v. Vlth Additional District Judge, Jaunpur and Ors. 2002 (2) ARC 685 : 2003 (1) AWC 287.
22. The grounds raised in the memo of revision must have been considered as to how the petitioner-tenant asked and requested the courts of law to ignore the facts of sub-letting by the tenant, which were found established on the basis of documentary evidence on record. All the documents and evidence placed on record were appreciated by the revisional court. No evidence was brought on record by the tenant that the partnership was dissolved before the advent of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
23. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
24. Most of the facts regarding ownership of the premises, title and other issues, are admitted to the parties. The spirit of the order passed by this Court on 11.11.1993 in W.P. No. 23 of 1991 is that the revisional court should decide the rent revision afresh. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its order dated 18.2.1988, had expected the revisional court to dispose of the revision petition expeditiously. Both the courts have not dealt with the points raised by the parties and finally concluded the controversy. It was expected from the revisional court to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. which empowers the revisional court to entertain the revision petition, to look in to the entire facts including the evidence and pass appropriate order. The revisional authority has been given the power to confirm or rescind the findings, order passed by the prescribed authority/Rent Control Officer.
25. The revisional authority has adopted the same course which was prescribed by this Court and affirmed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India. The revisional authority under the Act had to take in to account all the materials which were placed on record. It was open to it to interfere with the order passed by the prescribed authority.
26. It is a case where the tenants have been enjoying the premises in dispute for the last 77 years, situate in the heart of Lucknow, i.e.. at Aminabad on a meagre rent of Rs. 186.20 per month. They are occupying 5,000 sq. ft. area. The tenant is in occupation of main commercial area of Lucknow. As per documentary evidence on record, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that the present rent of the area is Rs. 15.00 per sq. ft. per month. The tenants have failed to pay even Rs. 186.20 per month, which had forced the landlady to file S.C. Suit No. 287 of 1985 for recovery of rent and ejectment of the petitioner. It has been brought on record that the petitioner-tenant in ducted, Sri Moti Lal Agarwal and Madan Lal Agarwal, non-members of the family, as partners who are running the business from the rented premises. The petitioner namely, firm was under the name of Punjab Cycle and Automobiles. As per the registration certificate, It was formally registered on 21.4.1976, by the Registrar of Firms and Societies. It was assessed by the departments of income-tax and sales-tax in the years 1974-75 and 1995-76. Admittedly this partnership firm consisting of non-members of family, continued to operate from the same premises till 1977. As per record of the in come Tax Office, this firm was carrying on business on 6.12.1977 also. Thus, on the basis of evidence in controversy, it is amply clear that when the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, was promulgated [i.e., on 15.7.72), M/s. Punjab Cycle and Automobiles, consisting of Seth Bashir Ahmad Bhattl. Moti Lal Agarwal, Madan Lal Agarwal and Daud Ahmad, was carrying on business in the name and style of Punjab Cycle and Automobiles and the allegation that the petitioner-tenant has sub-let the premises was proved. The tenant had taken non-family members as partners in this firm without obtaining consent of the landlady and the Rent Control Officer, Le., District Magistrate, Lucknow. There is nothing on record to show as to when and how the consent of the landlady or the Rent Control Officer, was obtained. Moreover, there was absence of fresh allotment order in favour of Punjab Cycle and Automobiles.
27. in the facts and circumstances of the case, the revisional court has rightly held that the act of the tenant in entering in to the business with the strangers to the family and that of subletting the property in question, had immediately culminated in termination of his tenancy, declaration of vacancy and a reasonable lawful cause for his eviction from the property in question. Similar views have been expressed by this Court in a judgment in the case of Basant Lal (supra) in which reliance has been placed on a judgment in Harish Tandon v. Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad 1995 (1) ARC 220 : 1995 (1) AWC 106 (SC). The Apex Court has held as under:
But the special feature of sub-section (2) of Section 12 is that there is a deeming clause in the said sub-section. If the subsection had provided that there a tenant carrying on business in the building admits a person who is not a member of his family as a partner, it shall amount to subletting of the premises, then there is no scope for investigation and examination as to whether in the process of in ducting such person as a partner in the business in fact that there has been a subletting of the premises. But subsection (2) says in clear and unambiguous words that once a person who is not a member of the family is admitted as a partner in the business by the tenant, the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the buildings.
28. There was an evaluation of Section 12 (2) and infringement of Section 25 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. This Court has held that revisional court has jurisdiction to consider the evidence and allow the application for declaration of the vacancy and eviction of the tenant. Since this case has remained pending for several years, i.e., since 1988, it would not be in the interest of justice to remand the matter to the rent control authority. I am satisfied that the revisional court has dealt with all the points in detail and passed a reasoned and well considered order. This Court cannot shut its eyes at the conduct and activities of the petitioner and ignore the fact of sub-letting the premises by the tenant. It was found proved on the basis of documentary evidence like formation of a partnership firm and its constitution and documents relating to registration of firm, cash assessment, returns, certificates issued by the tax authorities that there was existence of partnership, firm constituted by non-family members, which was carrying on business from the rented premises belonging to the landlady. The firm became a legal entity after its registration on 21.4.1976. As per the record, the business was being carried out in December, 1977 also, much after the advent of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 w.e.f. 15.7.1972. The Rent Control authority, A.D.M., Sri N.S. Zaidl in its order dated 29.10.1988 had not appreciated these facts in detail. A vague, bald and non-speaking order running in 12 sentences had been passed. No proper findings and conclusions have been recorded. The Rent Control Officer has recorded its findings in telegraphic language.
29. It is noteworthy that when a release application indicating therein the bona fide and genuine need of the landlady/landlord, is filed before the prescribed authority, it is the duty of the concerned authority to appreciate the bona fide and genuine need of the tenant vide Siddalingama v. M. Shenoy .
30. This Court has taken in to account all the facts that the release application was filed in the year 1985. The landlady's first son a youngman of 30 years was carrying on business at Nadan Mahal Road from a rented accommodation despite having his own family shop. He was paying rent. It was the case of the landlady that the Nadan Mahal area for the wholesale medicine business was not suitable. Ultimately, as per the supplementary affidavit, her son had to run his business from the residential house situate in New Hyderabad, Lucknow. The landlady has brought subsequent events also to the notice of the Court that the second son also wants to establish his chemical business in the Aminabad area, Lucknow. There is no other accommodation available to the sons of the landlady.
31. None of the Courts below have appreciated that the tenant despite filing of the release application has not looked for alternative accommodation. The tenant has not brought anything on record to demonstrate his genuine efforts. in fact he was enjoying the fruits of the litigation which was initiated in the year 1985. 5,000 sq. ft. precious covered area in central park of the Aminabad is being occupied by the tenant for the last 76 years on a meagre rent of Rs. 186.20 per month (no rent in the eye of law). Thus applying the principle of law as Laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case in B.C. Bhutada v. G.R. Mundada 2005 (2) ARC 899, on these grounds also, the premises deserves to be released in favour of the landlady and her sons. The petitioner-tenant has already enjoyed the property for the last 76 years and as per the record he has sub-let the premises to several persons, shopkeepeRs.
32. In view of above discussion, I find no illegality or irregularity in the orders parsed by the revisional court. No interference is required. The writ petition is dismissed.
33. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to vacate the premises and handover the peaceful possession of the premises to the landlady, Smt. Uma Tandoa, respondent No. 2 within two months from today. This order is being passed in the presence of the learned Counsel for the parties and they shall ensure compliance of the Court's order.