Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another V. Bharat Press and others 1095
meaning only to discard the evidence
and the contention of the landlord. It is
eloquent on the face of the two
judgments of the courts below that
conscious and deliberate effort has been
made to negate the valid contention of
the petitioners.
26. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, it is a foregone conclusion
that the need of the landlord is genuine,
bonafide and the landlords are
defenitely suffering greater hardship and
they are entitled for release of the two
shops in possession of respondent nos. 1
and 2. Both the father and son have
conclusively pleaded and affirmed their
independent need for a vacant
accommodation and therefore, both the
shops are liable to be released in their
favour. I am not inclined to remand the
matter for afresh decision. Admittedly,
father is a very old man and remand of
the case might render the entire purpose
of institution of the release application
fruitless. The Apex Court in the case of
G. C. Kapoor Vs. Nand Kumar Bhasin
and others, AIR 2002 Supreme Court,
200 allowed the release application
straightaway setting aside the findings
of the Prescribed Authority, Appellate
Authority and the High Court on the
question of bonafide need and
comparative hardship. The Apex Court
was of the view that no fruitful purpose
will be solved in remanding the matter
and thereby opening another gate of
fresh series of litigation. Similar view
was adopted by the Apex Court in the
case of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder
Vs. Viswesaraswami V.P. Temple and
another, 2004 All. C.J., 304 (S.C.).
27. I am conscious of the fact that
this Court cannot reevaluate the
evidence and substitute its own findings
because two views are possible. A bare
perusal of the release application,
objections filed by tenants and the
various affidavits it is abundantly clear
that the landlords (petitioners) who are
owners, require the shops for their
personal need. They are the first and the
rightful claimant to use their own
property as they want it. This is a
situation where father and son with their
spouses are facing a number of
problems and therefore the release of
the shops cannot be refused. The very
purpose of the Act stands frustrated if
the two judgments of the courts are left
to stand.
28. In the circumstances and for
the reasons detailed herein above the
writ petition is allowed. The judgment
and order dated 11.8.2008 passed by the
Small Causes Court, Allahabad in P.A.
Case No. 13 of 2005 and judgment and
order dated 28.5.2009 passed by the
Additional District and Session Judge,
Court No. 12, Allahabad in Rent
Control Appeal No. 119 of 2008 are
quashed.
29. In the end, learned counsels for
the tenants have made a request for
granting some time to the tenants to
vacate the shops in question. However,
the request of the learned counsels for
the tenants that some time may be
allowed to vacate the shops in question
appears to be reasonable and justified.
30. The tenants are permitted six
months' time from today to vacate the
shops in question and handover vacant
possession to the landlord till 25.4.2010
provided they file an undertaking within
a period of four weeks before the