GAURI SHANKAR Vs. VED PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 18.08.2010, passed by the Additional District Judge / IInd F.T.C., Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No. 92 of 2008, whereby judgment and order dated 25.06.2008, passed by the Prescribed Authority / Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vikas Nagar, Dehradun in P.A. Case No. 73 of 2003, Gauri Shankar Vs. Buddhumal, was set aside and application seeking release of the suit property on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that landlord/petitioner, herein, has filed P.A. Case No. 73 of 2003, Gauri Shankar Vs. Buddhumal, in the Court of Prescribed Authority seeking eviction of the tenant and to release the suit property (shop in question) in favour of the landlord on the ground of bona fide need stating therein that petitioner/plaintiff, therein, is owner and landlord of three shops in Harbartpur; in one of the shops, Buddhumal is doing business of general store as a tenant while another shop is in the tenancy of Jado Ram and in the third shop petitioner/landlord is doing grocery shop business; Ajay Kumar and Amit Kumar, both sons of the landlord/ petitioner, herein, could not get higher education and are unemployed youth ; shop in question is bonafidly required by the landlord/petitioner, herein, to establish his unemployed son Ajay Kumar therein. It is further stated by the landlord/ petitioner that petitioner as well as his two unemployed sons, namely, Ajay Kumar and Amit Kumar cannot be adjusted in a shop, wherein landlord/petitioner, herein, is carrying on his grocery shop business. It is further stated that tenant Buddhumal has other properties in Harbartpur, including residential as well as commercial properties, and some of the shops owned by the tenant are let out by the tenant Buddhumal to others and in the event of eviction of the tenant from the tenanted shop, tenant would not suffer any hardship while in the event of rejection of the release application, landlord/petitioner, herein shall have no other suitable place to settle his unemployed son Ajay Kumar for doing his own independent business.

(3.) Release application was hotly contested and it was stated in the written statement that landlord is having other properties and his both sons are doing business with the landlord in the shop owned by the landlord which is near to the tenanted shop.