GIRISH CHANDRA SINGH RAWAT Vs. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, moved under Article 227 read with 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 31 -05 -1999 passed by the prescribed authority (whereby the application of landlord for release of shop is allowed) and order dated 29 -01 -2004, whereby the appellate court has dismissed the Rent Control Appeal No. 06 of 1999.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition are that, in 1995, Respondent No. 3 (landlord) 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 his shop which is in the tenancy of the Petitioner. Annexure -1 to the writ petition is the copy of said application which shows that release of the shop has been sought on the ground that Petitioner's eldest son who has learnt diamond cutting work, is an unemployed youth who has to do that business. Apart from this another son who knows dyeing and printing work of 'Pichchoras' (a cloth used by hill women on auspicious occasions) and he too is unable to do his business for want of shop. It is further alleged in the release application that the tenant (Petitioner) is doing business of repairing of television sets in the shop in question which he can shift elsewhere as in Belwal Market, a nearby place, vacant shops are available for such purpose. The Petitioner (tenant) contested the application and filed his written statement in which it is admitted that he is tenant of Respondent No. 3 in the shop in question on rent at the rate of Rs. 400/ - per month since 1988, but rest of the contents of application, as stated, are denied. In additional pleas it is stated that one son of the landlord is doing his work behind degree college. It is further stated in the written statement that work of dyeing and printing can be done at home. Lastly, it is said that Sri Prashant Verma, son of Respondent No. 3 is already earning well by doing diamond cutting work. Learned prescribed authority after accepting evidence and hearing the parties found the need of landlord to be genuine and bonafide and also greater hardship in his favour and allowed the application for release of the shop. Aggrieved by said order the tenant (present Petitioner) preferred appeal under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. After hearing the parties, the same was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Haldwani on 29 -01 -2004. Hence, this writ petition on the ground that both the authorities below have erred in law in holding the need of the landlord to be genuine and bonafide and on the point as to comparative hardship. It is further alleged in the writ petition that during the pendency of appeal, the Respondent No. 3 (landlord) has got constructed two new shops in the ground floor and one shop in the first floor as such his need is no more bonafide nor is there any hardship in his favour. It is alleged that the Respondent No. 1 has erred in law by ignoring said fact, at the time of disposal of appeal.

(3.) I heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the affidavits, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit alongwith annexures thereto.