DEEPAK OBEROI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE,DEHRADUN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, moved under Article 227 read with Ar­ticle 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner /tenant has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28-03-2001 passed in PA. Case No. 64 of 1999 by the prescribed authority (whereby the application of landlord for release of accommodation in question is allowed) and order dated 03-02-2003 passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby Rent Control Appeal No. 40 of 2001 is dismissed against the order of the prescribed authority.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as nar­rated in the petition are that, the peti­tioner is tenant in shop No. 71 / 132, Narishilp Mandir Marg, Dehradun on rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. The petitioner is doing business of auto repairing work in the shop from the time of his father. It is alleged that Sri Brij Lal Sehgal, original landlord, in connivance with respondent No. 3 Sri Virendra Sehgal, executed a gift deed on 13-08-1999 in order to get the pe­titioner evicted from the shop in ques­tion. Respondent No. 3 moved an ap­plication under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of accommodation in tenancy of the pe­titioner. A written statement was filed by the petitioner, before the prescribed authority denying the bonafide need of the landlord and also stating that the petitioner, if evicted would suffer greater hardship as against the land­lord. Learned prescribed authority af­ter accepting evidence of parties and hearing them, allowed the release ap­plication holding that the landlord's need is bonafide and .genuine. It also held that landlord would suffer greater hardship as against the tenant. Ag­grieved by said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the District Judge (respondent No.l), who, after hearing the parties concurred with the prescribed authority, and dis­missed the appeal. Hence, this petition. In para 11 of the petition, it has been stated that during the pendency of ap­peal, the petitioner filed an affidavit as additional evidence stating that re­spondent No.3 is engaged in the con­struction business and has got regis­tered a Company. And, in reply to said affidavit, the respondent No. 3 admit­ted doing the business of construction. In further paras it is stated by the peti­tioner that need of the landlord came to an end after he filed additional evi­dence that meanwhile he has done graduation in law and wants to open his office in the accommodation in question. Petitioner also challenged both the impugned orders, on the ground that the findings of the respond­ent Nos. 1 and 2 are not only perverse but also against the law. Claiming that the respondent No. 3 is doing his busi­ness with his father in the name and style of M/s Makhanlal Raj Rani Sehgal Construction Co. (Pvt.) Limited, it is further alleged that availability of as many as fourteen cabins with the re­spondent No.3, cannot be ignored only on the ground that the same are in the name of his father Sri Ashok Sehgal which are exhibited by the family of respondent No. 3 - TO LET.'

(3.) I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits, coun­ter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit alongwith annexures filed by the parties.