AJAY PRATAP Vs. SANJAY SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition, the Petitioners have sought a writ or certiorari quashing the impugned judgments dated 18-8-2004 and 5-10-2007, passed by Prescribed Authority and District Judge Almora, annexed as Annexure Nos. 4 and 8 to the writ petition respectively, and the consequential eviction of the Petitioners from the tenement shop in dispute.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition are that Harish Shah ( since deceased) father of Respondents filed application Under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for eviction of Petitioners from the disputed shop, consisting show case, two rooms, and five rooms of go down. The premises is a part of the building Old No. 356 and new No. 89(1). There was a family partition and applicant got the disputed property in partition. The property was in the tenancy of Krishna Pratap @ Rs. 150/- per month. He died 1 years ago. He was carrying the business of shoes in the name and style of Pratap Traders. The applicant was serving in the Electricity Board Almora. He retired from service in the year 1996. Sanjay Sah son of deceased applicant aged about 20 years has got the education upto M.A. There are two daughters of the deceased who are unemployed. According to applicant on his retirement he was getting pension 2500/- per month and he has income of Rs. 150/- per month from the rent of shop. The assertion of the applicant was that he was not able to feed his family members by the pension and income of rent therefore, he wanted to establish his son and daughters in the premises in dispute. Hence he filed the release application.

(3.) The opposite parties, who are sons and daughters of late Krishna Pratap, filed their objections admitting the tenancy on the disputed premises @ Rs. 150/- per month as rent. They also admitted that the original landlord had retired in 1996. It has been stated that the shop in question was taken on rent in the year 1955. At that time one Sri Ude Lal Sah was the owner of property. He died 20 years ago. After his death, Jawahar Lal Sah, Banke Lal Sah, Jagdish Lal Sah and Harish Lal Sah became the landlord of property in dispute. Krishna Pratap, father of Petitioners died in 1997 and before his death, Petitioners 3 to 5 got married and they started to reside in their Sasural and they are not co-tenants of the disputed property. It was further alleged in the objections that the applicant has no bonafide need of the property. He has received a handsome amount of about four lacs rupees at the time of retirement. It was also alleged that they tried to search the alternative accommodation at Almora, but they did not get success. They further alleged that the disputed premises are situated in a part of a big building. The building consists of so many shops and residential portion. A part consisting of two shops is in the possession of the family members of the applicant. The applicant has a good income. On the other side, the disputed premises are the only source of livelihood of tenants family consisting of nine persons.