(1.) The petitioner is a tenant and is facing the judgment of eviction/release, as it has been rendered concurrently by both the Courts below in the proceedings which were held under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short "Act No.13 of 1972") being judgment dated 19.01.2019, which has been rendered by the court of Additional District Judge 1st, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Rent Control Appeal No.07 of 2017 "Raj Kumar Grover Vs. Sachin Mehrotra".
(2.) As a consequence thereto, the appeal which was preferred by the petitioner/tenant under Section 22 of the Act No.13 of 1972, stood rejected. Resulting into an affirmation of the judgment dated 24.08.2017, which was rendered by the learned Prescribed Authority, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Rent Control Case No.02 of 2016 "Sachin Mehrotra Vs. Raj Kumar Grover". As a consequence to the judgments, which are under challenged, the tenement shop which admittedly was under the tenancy of the petitioner, was sought to be vacated in order to met the personal requirements of the landlord/respondent, who wanted to open his own medical shop for dealing, with the wholesale business, in which he has been engaged for quite some time, and for which he needed the disputed accommodation in question. The respondent/landlord, also took a ground that his need happens to be a more exigent, as compared to that of the tenant/petitioner, for the reason being that at the time of the release itself, the landlord/respondent himself, was forced to carry out his business from the other tenented accommodation, despite the fact that he was having his own shop under his ownership, which was let out to the petitioner, for which the release application was filed.
(3.) There had been various rival contentions, which had been raised before the learned trial court, but ultimately both the Courts below after appreciating the respective case, have concurrently allowed the release application holding thereof that the landlord/respondent who has got a shop under his ownership, cannot be compelled to continue, to conduct his business from the tenant's accommodation, and since he wants to conduct his business from his own shop the bonafide need obviously had been rightly determined in his favour, by both the courts below.