Ghanshyam Behari and Others vs District Judge,Ballia and Others

A.K. Yog, J.—List has been revised. None appeared.

Having perused the petition it transpires that a release application (case No. 11 of 1989) was filed before the Prescribed Authority, Ballia, under Section 21(l)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (herein called as the "Act") on the ground that the landlords, family had swelled and that Smt. Indu Srivastava (wife of the applicant No. 1) was a graduate who has learnt type writing but she was idle, could not get a job and hence she wants to start a typewriting institute in the house in question.

After the parties have led evidence, the Prescribed Authority allowed the release application vide judgment and order dated 10 91991 held that the case of the landlord was bona fide, and genuine and that comparative hardship was also led in favour of the landlord. The Prescribed Authority directed that two years rent may be paid to the defendant as a compensation.

Feeling aggrieved, an appeal No. 6 of 1991 was filed which has been allowed by the appellate authority, District Judge, Ballia vide judgment and order dated 1641992. Perusal of the appellate Court''s order shows that the appellate authority was acting under some misapprehension while giving finding on the bona fide need in as much as the appellate authority observed that in number of cases husbands do not like their wives to be in employment thinking that their life would not be happy.

It is settled principle that no Court should apply his personal views and the question whether the case of the landlord that wife requires accommodation for running a typewriting institution should have been decided on the basis of material on record. Such an observation, according to me, is without basis and uncalled for. Otherwise also, the reason given by the Prescribed Authority for arriving at the finding of the "bona fide need" and "hardship" have not been dealt with or reversed for giving good reasons. The appellate authority ought to have dealt with the reasoning of the Prescribed Authority when It was passing a judgment of reversal.

The writ petition is allowed.

The above impugned judgment and order dated 1641992 (Annexure3 to the writ petition) is hereby set aside. Case is being sent back to Respondent No. 1 District Judge, Ballia for deciding Appeal No. 6 of 1991 in accordance with law.

No order as to costs.