KEDAR NATH AGRAWAL DEAD Vs. DHANRAJI DEVI DEAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is filed by the tenant of disputed shop ka situate in kasba Rasra, Paragana Lakhaneshuwar, District Ballia, against the order of eviction passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') , in Case No. 29 of 1983, confirmed by the District Judge, Ballia in Rent Control Appeal No. 4 of 1984 and also confirmed by High Court of Judicature at allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19160 of 1985.

(2.) To appreciate the controversy raised in the appeal, few relevant facts may be stated. An application under Section 21 of the act was filed by Dhanraji Devi and Jagdeo shah, stating inter alia that applicant No. 2 was the owner of the suit property and applicant No. 1 was her husband. Applicant No. 2 purchased the property but due to his old age got the sale deed executed in the name of applicant No. l. It was also stated that applicant no. 2 constructed a shop and carried on cloth business in the said shop for some time. He had also cloth business at Calcutta and since it was not properly managed, he decided to go to Calcutta. He let the suit shop to the opponents appellants herein for a period of one year. It was further stated in the application that due to riots in Bengal the applicants had to put an end to the business at Calcutta and they had to return at Ballia. The source of livelihood then remained in conducting business in the suit-shop. They had obtained licence to carry on hosiery business. They, therefore, bona fide required the suit property for doing the said business and to earn livelihood. It was also alleged that the opponents were not doing any business in the suit-shop and they had locked it only to harass the applicants. It was, therefore, prayed that an order of eviction may be passed against the opponents.

(3.) The opponents appellants herein filed a written statement denying the facts stated and averments made in the application. It was denied that the applicants required the suit-shop for their bona fide use for business. It was also stated that the opponents were paying rent regularly and doing their business since many years. It was asserted that the applicants had other properties also and hence their requirement could not be said to be bona fide. Moreover, the applicants had cloth business at Calcutta and they were not in need of the shop. It was, therefore, prayed that the application was liable to be dismissed.