MURARI LAL SAH Vs. IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,NAINITAL : THE PRESCRIBED ,AUTHORITY/MUNSIF : NAINITAL SHRI KISHORI LAL SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, moved under article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner-landlord has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 29.2.1992, passed by Shri A. K. Srivastava, the then learned IV Additional District Judge, Nainital, whereby he has allowed Rent Control appeal No. 40 of 1989 and rejected the release application, moved by the landlord under Section 21 of U.P Act 13 of 1972.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as nar­rated in the writ petition are that the petitioner-landlord filed an applica­tion under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act (copy Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) before the Prescribed Au­thority for, release of his shop No. 76, Tallital, Nainital (hereinafter referred to as the `premises in question') with the plea that he is the owner landlord of the said premises and the respond­ent No. 3/opposite party, Shri Kishori Lal Sah, is a tenant from month to month. It is further alleged in the pe­tition that the petitioner has pur­chased the shop vide registered sale deed dated 31.1.1981 and the pur­pose of buying the shop was the `pressing need of the petitioner to carry on his business in the shop as he has no independent business of his own. The alleged ground for seek­ing release of premises in question is at the petitioner is only working in shop of his brother in the capac­ity of a partner and that his brother wants to carry on independent busi­ness and intends to 'dissolve the partnership. It was further stated that the petitioner has no independent busi­ness of his own and the `premises in question' are required by the petitioner for the purpose of doing his own independent business so that he may meet the need and requirement of his family members consisting of his wife and two sons. Also, it is al­leged that no hardship will be caused to the respondent No. 3/opposite party if the application for release is allowed as the opposite party has as many as seven shops which he has let out to different persons on rent. Besides it is also alleged that the op­posite party runs a hotel in which he is doing brisk business and he has , also let out suites to holiday home end is fetching a very handsome sum from the said building and shops.

(3.) THE learned Prescribed Author­ity' recorded findings of bonafide need and comparative hardship in favor of the petitioner/landlord on the basis of-evidence adduced before it in support of averments made in , the pleadings by both the parties and allowed the release application. Ag­grieved by which the tenant-respond­ent no. 3, preferred appeal under Section 22 of U. P Act, 13 of 1972, which was allowed by learned IV Ad­ditional District Judge, Nainital. Hence this writ petition.