SARASWATI DEVI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, moved under Article 227 read with 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners/tenants have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 18 -02 -2003 passed by Respondent No. 2 and order dated 18 -03 -2004 passed by Respondent No. 1 whereby, the release application of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (landlords) has been allowed and appeal arisen out of said order, has been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in this petition are that, in the year 2002 Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the landlords, filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for release of accommodation (shop) in question situated in Jaspur, on the ground that they need the same to open a branch of their business running in the name and style M/s Jagraj Saran and Sons, Moradabad. The Petitioners filed their objections in the form of written statement against said application, before the Prescribed Authority, denying that Petitioners are not running any business in the shop in question. It is further alleged that in fact Petitioner No. 4 comes every fortnight to Jaspur for providing consultation to his patients. It is further alleged that Petitioner No. 1 also uses the shop for carrying business of electrical items. It was denied by the Petitioners that the landlords need to open branch of their business was genuine or bonafide. It is also alleged that earlier Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 instituted Small Causes Suit No. 04 of 2000 in respect of same shop which has been dismissed on 07 -02 -2002. In para 6 of petition, it is stated that turnover of business of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 at Moradabad is over one crore, as such their need was not bonafide. Rather, it is alleged, that the landlords want to sell the property after getting vacated the shop. Assailing the impugned orders passed by Prescribed Authority and District Judge, whereby the landlords have won their case, Petitioners have challenged the same through this petition on the ground that the authorities below have not considered hardship of the Petitioners and also that the need of the landlords have been wrongly held to be bonafide. It is alleged that the findings of courts below are erroneous and against the law.

(3.) I heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.