BHAGWAT SHARAN AGRAWAL Vs. OM PRAKASH BHARDWAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 05-02-2011, passed by VI Additional District Judge, Haridwar, in Rent Control Appeal No. 76 of 2001, Om Prakash Bhardwaj Vs. Bhagwat Sharan, whereby the appeal was allowed and the order dated 27-7-2001, passed by Prescribed Authority was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this petition, are that plaintiff/respondent filed S.C.C. Suit No. 16/1999, Om Prakash Bhardwaj Versus Sri Bhagwat Saran in the court of Judge S.C.C./Civil Judge (S.D.) Haridwar, for eviction against the petitioner/defendant on the ground that the premises in dispute was in the tenancy of petitioner/defendant @ Rs. 100/- per month rent and water tax and house tax @ Rs. 17.50P. per month and he has defaulted in paying the rent as well as water tax and house tax. The landlord sent notice to the tenant for payment of arrears of rent and water tax and house tax as well as for eviction. The learned Judge S.C.C. dismissed the suit of the landlord. The landlord also filed application U/S 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the tenant for release of the premises in question during the pendency of said suit.

(3.) The application U/S 21(1)(a) of the Act, has been filed for personal need and his son Saket on the ground that the tenant has defaulted in payment of rent. The landlord was employed in Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited and the disputed shop was given to the tenant on the condition that after retirement of the landlord, the shop would be vacated by the tenant and possession would be given to the landlord, but after the retirement of the landlord, the shop has not 2 been vacated by the tenant. The landlord has retired in 1991. He does not get any pension. The landlord has the family consisting of his wife, two sons Saket aged 18 years and Sachin aged 14 years. The landlord cannot afford expenses of his family members. His wife is doing a private job and is getting Rs. 500/- per month. The landlord wants to open his own business of ready-made garments on the disputed shop. It is also alleged that the landlord has also another shop having a width of 6 feet only and the said shop has no sufficient space to run the business of readymade garments, therefore, he wants to expand the shop in his possession with the disputed shop so as to run his business of readymade garments. It is also alleged in the release application that the landlord wants to accommodate his son Saket in the disputed shop. It is also alleged in the release application that if the tenant vacates the shop in question he is ready to pay a sum equal to two years rent of the disputed shop to the tenant.