Heard Smt. Anita Tripathi and Sri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in the above writ petitions and Sri JS Pandey, learned counsel who appears for the respondent.
The respondent-landlord filed separate applications for the release of shop nos. 1 & 5, 2 and 10 respectively situate at Bansal Market, Gudri Mansoor Khan, Agra under section 21 (1) of UP Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short 'the Act') on the ground of bona fide need.
The release application after contest by the petitioners-tenants were dismissed, but in appeals preferred by the respondent-landlord, the shops have been released by separate judgment and orders dated 04.04.2008 passed on identical lines.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent-landlord has several alternative suitable accommodations available with him and, therefore, his need for the shops in dispute is not bonafide.
The respondent-landlord alongwith his father has, in his possession, a huge property no. 28/356, Gurdi Mansoor Khan, Agra wherein there exists a three storied house and several shops and the need of the respondent-landlord, if any, can be met by the shops therein.
In appeals an affidavit was filed stating that the respondent-landlord in one of the properties possessed by him, has started a business of marriage hall in the name of 'Utsav Marriage Hall' and a shop in the name of 'Utsav Gallery' for the sale of artificial jewelery and gift items.
In view of above two business started by the respondent-landlord, it is contended that he is no longer in need of the shops in dispute.
The prescribed authority on consideration of entire evidence on record had found that the need of the respondent-landlord is not genuine and bonafide in the wake of other properties available with him and the release applications were dismissed.
The appellate court after narrating the entire facts and the arguments and discussing the case law on the bona fide need in one paragraph at the end has simply drawn a conclusion that the need of the respondent-landlord for the shops in dispute is bonafide. It has neither referred to any evidence nor has analyzed the same to arrive at the above conclusion. It has simply stated that the petitioners have not produced any documentary evidence to show that the respondent-landlord has established any business of marriage hall or that he is in possession of other properties. The appellate court failed to discuss even the affidavit filed at the appellate stage contending that respondent-landlord has established a marriage hall and a shop. The findings recorded by the prescribed authority were not even set aside. It could not have substituted its own finding without setting aside the contrary findings of the court below.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the judgments and orders of the appellate court are completely non-speaking and the conclusion drawn by is without any basis.
Accordingly, the appellate judgment and orders of dated 04.04.2008 are not tenable in law and are accordingly quashed and all aforesaid three matters are remanded to the appellate court for deciding the appeals afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this before him.
It will be open for the parties to raise any other point which may be considered proper and even about the maintainability of the release applications as filed by the respondent-landlord.
The writ petitions are allowed as above with no order as to cost.
Order Date :- 25.8.2014 SKS