May - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2All] Vinay Kumar Madhok V. Om Prakash and others 43
– particularly the aspect that no shop was
available to him on a rent suiting to his pocket
and he was not in position to purchase the
shop.
24. The submission of the petitioner
appears to be that unless a tenant has an
alternative suitable accommodation,
according to his own standards, ‘release’
application cannot be allowed by courts. This
submission in ‘extreme’ and isolation cannot
be accepted being fallacious misconceived
and amounts to stretching things too far in
favour of Petitioner ignoring landlord who is
generally owner of the accommodation. Law
does not require that a tenant must have an
alternative accommodation before the release
application may be decided against him.
25. The view taken by this Court is
supported from the observation made in the
judgment reported in 1984(I) ARC 114 (para
126) N.S. Dutta versus VII Additional District
Judge, Allahabad and in 1982 (I) ARC 783 –
Kamil Khan Versus III Additional District
Judge and others.
26. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance on the decision reported in
1990 (1) ARC 103. In this judgment leaned
single (in para 34) has observed that growing
need of a party should have been considered.
In this view of the matter need of tenant alone
cannot be seen but also that of the landlord.
The facts of the case indicate that
accommodation in question was a shop and
landlord wanted release of it for the purpose
of a shop. This judgment is clearly
distinguishable.
27. In the instant case landlord wants
residential accommodation for his growing
children, one of the two sons was to be
married shortly. Landlord and his wife cannot
live with grown up sons and /or daughters nor
they can inter se amongst themselves be
adjusted in the room of the others. Married
son cannot stay in the bedroom of his parents
or in the room of his unmarried sisters or
room of grown up brother.
28. This release application was filed in
the year 1987 and by passage of time it has
come on record that during the pendency of
the proceedings landlord family is growing
and they need extra residential
accommodation. On the other hand, the tenant
admittedly does not have significant income
from the shop and has been able to seek
reemployment/ job with his earlier employers.
Carrying on business as a side show, for some
additional income cannot be given precedence
or priority over an acute residential need of
the landlord.
29. In view of the above, I do not find any
manifest error apparent in the impugned
judgment and order dated 3.11.1999 passed
by the Additional District Judge, Dehradun,
Respondent no.2 and the findings recorded by
the Appellate Authority are hereby affirmed.
Writ petition has no merit and it is,
accordingly, dismissed.
30. After dictation of the above judgment
could be typed and finally signed a mercy
application (subsequently numbered 9606 of
2000) on behalf of the petitioner praying for
grant of time to vacate the shop in dispute was
moved in chambers on 1-2-2000. This
application is supported by an affidavit of
Sushila Madhok (wife of the petitioner). A
copy of this application has also been served
on Sri Rajesh Tandon, counsel for respondent
no.1- Landlord.
31. Before lunch, I directed learned
counsel for the petitioner to inform Shri
Tandon, counsel for the contesting
Respondent and appear in Court in this case.
Shri Rajesh Tandon requested case to be taken
up on 2-2-2000. Application was directed to
be put up on 2-2-2000. Shri Aditya Narain
and Shri Rajesh Tandon, Advocates appeared
in Court on 2-2-2000.