LAWS(UTN)-2010-7-50

SATYA PRAKASH KURKETI Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE DEHRADUN

Decided On July 07, 2010
SATYA PRAKASH KURKETI Appellant
V/S
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE DEHRADUN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K. N. Joshi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. B. P. Nautiyal, the learned Counsel for the Respondent tenant.

(2.) A release application was filed by the landlord Petitioner on 19th August, 1996 under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act) for the release of the accommodation on the ground for setting up a business for the youngest son. The landlord contended that he had three sons and that the shop in question was required to settle his youngest son, who was unemployed for the last two years. The landlord submitted that the requirement was bonafide and that even on a comparative hardship, if his son was not settled, it will cause more hardship to him instead of the tenant, who can look for another shop.

(3.) The tenant opposed the application alleging that there was no bonafide need and that the landlord had concealed material facts with regard to the number of accommodation which he has in his possession. The tenant contended that the son of the landlord was not unemployed and in fact was gainfully employed and that the landlord has in his possession vacant shops in Ajabpur Danda, which can be easily utilized for setting up the business for his son. Further, there were a number of shops adjacent to the tenant's shop which could also be utilized by the landlord and one such shop, which was vacant, was let out unauthorisedly without any allotment order to one Puran Chand Bhatt and, therefore, the need for the release of the shop on the ground of setting up the business for his son does not appear to be a genuine.