MOHAN LAL VASUDEV Vs. SARDAR JASBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 11.08.2008 (Annexure-1) passed by the learned Prescribed Authority, Ist Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun in P.A. Case no.5 of 2005 Mohan Lal Vasudev vs. Sardar Jasbir Singh Wadhwa and judgment and order dated 08.02.2010 (Annexure-II) passed by the Additional District Judge/FTC-IV, Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No.111 of 2008.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of shop bearing no.7, Cement Road, Dehradun, which is under the tenancy of respondent @ Rs.50/- per month. Petitioner moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for release of shop in question on the ground of bonafide need of his son Sunil Chandra. It is stated that petitioner's elder son is employed in O.N.G.C. whereas his younger son Sunil Chandra is unemployed. He is married and his wife and son are dependent upon the petitioner. He is supplying bakery products from door to door and has no place to establish his business. It is also stated that there are number of shops vacant in the vicinity where the respondent can shift his business. Petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondent/tenant on 5.6.2004, which was duly served upon the respondent. Respondent/tenant appeared before the trial court and filed his objections to the release application. In the written statement, respondent/tenant admitted the landlord-tenant relationship. However, he denied the bonafide of the petitioner/landlord. Respondent alleged that the elder son of the petitioner is working in ONGC and is living separately whereas the younger son of petitioner is carrying business of Bakery and Confectionary from shop no.1; that petitioner has sufficient accommodation to run the business; petitioner's son has obtained a loan of Rs.55,000/- from the bank to run the confectionary business; that he is selling bakery items from door to door is incorrect; respondent is running his business of grocery in the shop in question since 1971 and has earned a goodwill; and his livelihood is dependent upon said business; and that respondent has tried to search alternative shop but to no avail.

(3.) Thereafter both the parties led their oral and documentary evidence. In documentary evidence, petitioner/landlord filed his affidavit vide list 23A/1 to 41, sale deed vide list 24A/13 to 28, sale deed vide list 24A/29 to 35, income certificates regarding assessment year 1998-99 to 2005-06 vide document 24A/36 to 51, annual tax vide list 24A/52 to 57, receipt obtained from City Youngs Preparatory School amounting to Rs.900/-, receipt issued by Doon Blossom Junior School regarding fees of petitioner's son Sunil Chandra paper no.24A/59, Mark-sheet paper no.24A/60, registration certificate 24A/61, map of property no.7 and 9, Cement Road, Dehradun paper no.24A/62. Peitioner/landlord, in oral evidence, filed affidavit of Rajesh Vasudev, Jogendra Kumar, H.K. Goel, Jitendra Mohan Agarwal, Neeral Goel, Vinod Kumar, Rajeev Kumar, Rajesh Tyagi, Rajeev Mata, Rajan Kumar Arora, Kishan narula, Chandra Prakash Kukreja, H.S. Bagga, Devendra Hurla, Vinay Dwivedi.