MOHAN LAL Vs. VIRENDRA KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant/petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the judgment/order dated 19.11.2014, passed by 8th Additional District Judge, Dehradun, whereby learned Appellate Court was pleased to allow the Rent Control Appeal No. 53 of 2007, Smt. Radha Sethi and others Vs. Mohan Lal, directing the tenant/petitioner, herein, to vacate and handover the peaceful actual possession to the landlord within 30 days from the date of judgment on the ground that landlord has bona fide, genuine and pressing need of the shop, in question.

(2.) The brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that property no. 24, E.C. Road, Dehradun, was earlier owned by Sri Sunder Lal Sethi, father of the respondent no.1, herein; property no. 24, E.C. Road, Dehradun has three shops on the front while has residential portion on the back side; shop, in question, is measuring about 20X9 feet and was let out to the tenant Mohan Lal, petitioner, herein, about 35 years before; after the death of Sri Sunder Lal Sethi, entire property was inherited by his widow Smt. Radha Sethi and two sons Virendra Kumar and Chandra Prakash; Smt. Radha Sethi moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, in the Court of Prescribed Authority/1st Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Dehradun, seeking eviction of the tenant/petitioner, herein, saying that Smt. Radha Sethi had two sons, namely Virendra Kumar and Chandra Prakash; Chandra Prakash is a physically handicapped person and Virendra Kumar is virtually unemployed married youth; Virendra Kumar is engaged in temporary business of ice-cube and ice-cream behind the shop, in question, in the residential portion; shop, in question, is required to establish Virendra Kumar and his unemployed son Deepak to start independent business therein.

(3.) Written statement was filed by the tenant/petitioner, herein, stating therein that there were other two shops adjacent to the shop, in question, and in the year 1980, Sri Sunder Lal Sethi, the then owner /landlord, after removing the partition wall between the two shops, has let out both the shops as one unit to the wine contractor; Virendra Kumar is not unemployed and is engaged in ice cube/ice cream manufacturing and selling business in a place behind the shop, in question; landlord is earning handsome rental income by letting out adjacent shops to the wine contractor at a higher rate of rent; in the event of releasing the shop, in question, tenant would suffer irreparable loss as well as more hardship than the landlord.