NARENDER SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - tenant has sought writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 20.12.2002 and 24.4.1997 passed by the respondent No. 1 and 2 respectively, on the release application filed by respondent No. 3 under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is the tenant of shop bearing No. 54/44 situated in Akhara Mohalla, Dehradun. The tenancy started in the year 1931 when the petitioner's father entered in the shop as a tenant he died on 6.12.1968 leaving behind the petitioner who inherited the tenancy. The petitioner is running a tea stall in one room of the shop and in another room (Khan) business of cycle mart is being run by the petitioner's children. Respondent No. 1 purchased the shop on 16.10.1981 and about nine years there after moved a release application (P.A. Case No. 26 of 1991) under Section 21 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 on 7.2.1991 before the Prescribed Authority, Dehradun. The learned Prescribed Authority after taking the evidence and hearing the parties, passed an order dated 24.4.1997 (copy of order at Pages 104 to 112 of the record of this writ petition) directing release of a part of the shop in favour of the respondent No. 1. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 3 preferred appeals (RCA No. 30 of 1997 and RCA No. 36 of 1997) before learned District Judge, Dehradun. Both the rent control appeals were taken up together by Additional District Judge, FTC -3, Dehradun who disposed of the appeals by a common judgment and order dated 20.12.2002 (copy of judgment at Pages 114 to 125 of the record of this writ petition) whereby the release application was allowed in respect of whole of the shop. By said order, RCA No. 30 of 1997 i.e. preferred by the landlord was allowed and RCA No. 36 of 1997 i.e. preferred by the tenant was dismissed. Aggrieved by said order, the tenant has challenged both the orders of the prescribed authority as well as that of the appellate authority through this writ petition on the ground that the impugned orders passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is perverse. It is also alleged in the writ petition that the learned Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate Court failed to consider the hardship of the petitioner. It is further alleged that both the Courts below have wrongly reached to the conclusion as to bonafide need of landlord. It is also alleged in the writ petition that the respondent No. 3 owns other properties in the same mohalla on Ajit Prasad Marg which is purchased by him in the name of his wife. It is further alleged that the petitioner got vacant position of said shop No. 46/1 Ajit Prasad Marg purchased in his wife's name and, before filing the writ petition, let it out to one photographer. It is also alleged that the wife of respondent No. 3 is in service and as such the need shown by him, is not genuine. As to the hardship it is stated in the writ petition that petitioner's problem of running the business elsewhere is much more than that of the petitioner.

(3.) IN rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has stated that wife of respondent No. 3 was given the shop in the year 1980 in a vacant condition. It is further stated in the said rejoinder affidavit that one Mr. Somesh Verma was made to occupy the said shop by the wife of respondent No. 3 in violation of provisions of Act No. XIII of 1972 as such the same shop can be treated to be a vacant shop. It is further stated in supplementary rejoinder affidavit that son of respondent No. 3 is settled in Delhi and the need shown by the landlord is not a genuine need.