PRAVEEN KUMAR RASTOGI Vs. RAJ GOPAL ARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 02.11.2006, passed by Additional District Judge / F.T.C. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Rent Control Appeal No. 4 of 2005, Raj Gopal Arya Vs. Praveen Kumar Rastogi and others, whereby application moved by the landlord respondent herein under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1972") was allowed releasing the shop, in question, in favour of the landlord directing the tenant petitioner herein to hand over physical vacant possession of the shop, in question, to the landlord within a month from the date of judgment.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the present case, inter alia, are that landlord was working as Chief Engineer, Design and Monitoring in Himachal Pradesh and was due to retire on reaching the age of superannuation on 31st August, 1996; before the date of the retirement, landlord has moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority / Civil Judge (J.D.), Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, being Application No. 12 of 1996, stating therein that petitioner would stand retired w.e.f. 31st August, 1996; after his retirement, he would settle at Kashipur and shall reside in the residential accommodation available near the tenanted shop and he needs the tenanted shop to start the consultancy profession therein for the purpose of keeping himself busy and for the purpose of earning his livelihood.

(3.) APPLICATION , so moved, by the landlord respondent herein was contested by the tenant petitioner herein on the ground that landlord has other properties in Chandpur, Bijnor (U.P.) and in Shimla (H.P.) and has residential building near the tenanted shop, therefore, landlord, if wishes, may start his consulting profession in either of the properties, thus, landlord has absolutely no need for the tenanted shop, in question, and his need is mala fide.