KUNDAN SINGH S/O AMAR NATH SINGH AND TWO OTHERS Vs. CHANDRA KALA NAYAL W/O BHUPAL SINGH NAYAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 21-8-2009 (Annexure No.7) passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Almora (for short the Prescribed Authority) in Rent Control Case No. 2 of 2008m /Smt. Chandra Kala Nayal Vs. Nathu Singh and the judgment and order dated 15-6-2011 (Annexure No. 10) passed by the District Judge, Almora, in Rent Appeal No. 6 of 2006 Chandra Mohan Singh Vs. Smt. Chandra Kala Nayal and others. By the order dated 21-8- 2009, the Prescribed Authority has allowed the release application of the landlord-respondent no.1, moved under Section under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) and directed the opposite party Nathu Singh son of late Har Singh (since deceased) to vacate the shop in question and to deliver its vacant possession to the applicant within a period of two months. By the order dated 15-6-2011 the appeal preferred by the legal heirs of deceased Nathu Singh namely Chandra Mohan Singh and three others has been dismissed by the learned District Judge.

(2.) Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition in brief are that the landlady-respondent no.1 moved an application for release of the shop in question under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act on the ground of her bona fide need to settle her employed son Tarual Nayal in the business. The release application was resisted by the tenant Nathu Singh (since deceased) by filing his written statement/objection. He denied the bona fide need of the landlady and alleged that the landlady has been trying to evict him from the shop in question on one pretext or the other. Her son Tarun Nayal has been preparing for competitions to get a good job. It was asserted that the son of the landlady has no need for the shop in question, therefore, he was not produced in evidence. The opposite party is a tenant of the shop in question for the last sixty years and the shop in question is the only source of livelihood and in case the same is ordered to be vacated, the family of the opposite party shall dies due to starvation. The release application has been moved just to realise high rent in future.

(3.) Both the parties filed affidavits and other papers in support of their contentions.