NAND LAL Vs. PRABASH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Lokpal Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.9.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kashipur (for short the Prescribed Authority) in Rent Case NO.

(3.) OF 2005, Prabhash Chandra Vs. Lalman Foolmali as well as the order dated 30 -5 -2012 passed by the District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Rent Control Appeal NO. 4 of 2007. By the order dated 28 -9 -2007, 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) moved by the respondent -landlord was allowed by the Prescribed Authority and by order dated 30.5.2012, the appeal preferred by the tenant -petitioner has been dismissed. 3. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition, in brief, as emerges out from the record are that the respondent -landlord Prabhash Chandra moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act for release of the shop in question before the Prescribed Authority alleging therein that he along with his brother Subhash Chandra is the landlord of the shop in question and four other shops adjoining to it and in the year 2004 on account of oral partition between them, the shop in question came to his exclusive share. According to the respondent, the petitioner continues to be a tenant in the said shop on monthly rental of Rs. 36/ - plus water tax @ 12% thereon. The petitioner has bona fide need for shop in question to settle his son Shobhit Kumar Agrawal in business. The respondent requested the petitioner to vacate the said shop time and again but no heed was paid to his request, hence the respondent served a notice dated 5/7 -9 -2005 upon the petitioner by registered post demanding arrears of rent and to vacate the shop in question. The petitioner paid the arrears of rent but did not vacate the shop in question. Ultimately, on the ground of bona fide need, the release application was moved before the Prescribed Authority.