BAIJ NATH & SONS, PHOTOGRAPHERS, PROPRIETOR SRI KAILASH NATH AGARWAL Vs. SRI AMBA DUTT TEWARI AND TWO OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11-10-2002 passed by the respondent no.2- Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ranikhet, district Almora (for short Prescribed Authority)(Annexure No.3 to the petition) and the order dated 23-8-2003 passed by the respondent no.3- District Judge, Almora (Annexure No. 4). By order dated 11-10- 2002, the Prescribed Authority has allowed the application for release moved under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) of the landlord-respondent no.1 herein. By the order dated 23- 8-2003, the learned District Judge has dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the order passed by the Prescribed Authority.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent no.1 who is landlord and owner of shop no. 757 (for short the disputed shop) situate at Gandhi Chowk, Sadar Bazar, Ranikhet and the said shop is let out to the petitioner Baijnath and sons photographers on monthly rent. The son of the respondent no.1-Neeraj Tiwari is doing business in shop no. 759, which belongs to Sri Jagdish Chandra Tiwari, who is the brother of the 2 respondent no.1. The tenancy of the petitioner over the disputed shop is more than 40 years and the petitioner is running his business therein. The application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was moved by the respondent no. 1 for release of the disputed shop under the tenancy of the petitioner on the ground inter alia that his son Niraj Tiwari was doing the business of cement in shop no. 759 as a tenant. Lateron, he changed his business and started the business of gift items. In the mean time, his brother J.C.Tiwari, landlord-cum-owner of shop no. 759 has retired from service and he asked Niraj Tiwari to vacate the said shop to engage himself suitably during retired life.

(3.) THE petitioner-tenant filed his objection on the ground inter alia that both the brothers namely Amba Dutt Tiwari and J.C. Tiwari are in collusion just to throw the petitioner out from the disputed shop and that Mr. J.C. Tiwari, after having been retired from service, has settled at Nainital in his newly constructed house and he does not require his own shop to establish any business at Ranikhet. As such, the landlord of shop no. 759 does not need his shop, therefore, the need to vacate the shop no. 759 is only with a view to get the disputed shop vacated.