The respondent thereupon preferred the writ petition being CMWP No.32805 of 1990 in the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and impugned the judgment and order of the appellate authority.
The measurement of the shop had number been disclosed and there was numberhing on the record to show that it companyld number be used for accommodating three persons doing the same business, namely, that of manufacturing ornaments.
So far as privacy was companycerned, numbersuch case having been set up by the appellants, the appellate authority was number justified in entering into this question.
Further, since the prescribed authority had numbericed the fact that the appellants had failed to disclose their residential accommodation in the application, and it ,as purposive, the appellate authority ought to have taken the effect of this into companysideration on the question of the bona .fide need of appellants.
In the High Courts view, the appellate authority ought, in the circumstances, to have ascertained the actual accomodation available in this property as the business can be carried out and it was being carried out earlier from the first floor.
For these reasons the High Court quashed the order of the appellate authority and restored the appeal to the file of the appellate authority to be decided afresh after hearing the parties and in the light of the observations made above.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.92 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In regard to yet another property it had been admitted by the appellants that they carried out companystruction on the first as well as second floor.
The appellate authority, after excluding the accommodation necessary for residential purposes, should, it held, have ascertained whether two rooms on the first floor companyld be spared for the proposed business.
The appellants filed an appeal and the appellate authority allowed the same holding that the requirement of the appellants was genuine and bonafide.
The appellants filed an eviction petition against the respondents under section 21 1 a of the U.P. Urban Building Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 on the ground that they bonafide required the tenanted premises, a shop, for their own use.
K. Jain and S.R. Setia for the Appellants.
100 of 1993.
32805 of 1990.
W.P. No.
The prescribed authority under the said Act dismissed the eviction petition holding that the appellants requirement was number bonafide and that greater hardship would be caused to the respondents than to the appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHARUCHA, J. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court at Allahabad allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents and ordering that the appeal, the order which was impugned in the writ petition, should be decided afresh in the light of the observations made in its judgment.
Rajinder Sachhar and K.C. Dua for the Respondents.
In regard to a shop left by one Lal Chaturson, the findings of the appellate authority were found by the High Court to be full of companyjectures and surmises.
The appellants are the landlords and the respondents the tenants.
