BHAGWAN SINGH RAWAT Vs. SAROJINI THAPLIYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is filed, assailing the judgment and order dated 30.04.2013, passed by the District Judge, Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No. 126 of 2011, whereby appeal filed by the tenant/respondent herein against the judgment and order dated 05.11.2011, passed by the Prescribed Authority was allowed and application moved by the landlords/petitioners herein for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement by the landlord for the personal need of son of the applicant/petitioner No.2 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case, inter-alia, are that both the petitioners herein moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of UP Act, against the tenant/respondent herein for the eviction of the tenant. It is specifically stated in the application that both the applicants/petitioners herein are joint owners/landlords of the shop in question. Shri Tushar Rawat S/o applicant No.2 Vinod Singh Rawat as well as nephew of applicant No.1 Bhagwan Singh Rawat is 12th standard pass and is an unemployed youth, therefore, shop in question is bonafidely required, so that Tushar Rawat may start his business of readymade garments in the shop in question. Tenant in his written statement before the Prescribed Authority, in paragraph No.1 has stated that the rent of the shop in question is being paid to the applicant No.1 only, therefore, for all practical purposes, applicant No.1 is the landlord and it is not in the knowledge of the tenant, as to whether, applicant No.2 is also co-owner/co-landlord of the property in question. It was further stated that alleged need to establish Tushar Rawat in the shop in question is imaginary and in fact no such need exists and real intention of the landlords is to get the disputed shop vacated on one ground or another and, thereafter, to let it out on the higher rent to third party.

(3.) Learned Prescribed Authority, having recorded finding of the fact that shop in question is bonafidely required by the landlords to establish unemployed son of the applicant No. 2 was pleased to allow application moved under 21 (1) (a) of the Act, directing the tenant to handover the peaceful vacant actual possession of the shop in question to the landlord within 30 days from the date of the judgment.