LALI DEVI Vs. XVII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 24-8-1995, releasing Shop No. 14/1/10 situate in Jama Masjid, Police Station Mantola, Ward No. nil, Agra and the order of the Appellate authority dismissing the appeal against the said order on 29-11-1999.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that Respon dent Nos. 3 and 4 filed an application under Section 21 (l) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) with the allega tions that they purchased two shops bear ing No. 14/1/9 and 14/1/10, adjoining to each other, situate in Jama Masjid for their personal need. Smt. Lali Devi the petitioner was tenant of Shop No. 14/1/10 and her husband Lachchhu Babu Yadav is tenant of Shop No. 14/1/9. Kali Charan Goel, Respondent No. 3 requires the shop for carrying on business of preparation, manufacture and sale of 'petha' while Subhash Chandra Goel. Respondent No. 4 requires it for his Chambers as he is an Advocate. THE application was contested by the tenants. THEy denied the averments made by them. THE Prescribed Authority, by this order dated 24-8-1995 allowed the application in respect of Shop No. 14/1/10 but rejected the application in respect of Shop No. 14/1/9. It was found that Kali Charan Goel has no other shop to carry on business but the version of respondent No. 4 that he requires another shop under the tenancy of Lachchhu Babu Yadav, is not required by him and against this order the petition preferred Appeal No. 173 of 1995 and Respondent Nos. Sand 4 filed Appeal No. 177 of 1995. Both these appeals have been dismissed by Appellate Authority on 29-11-1999.

(3.) THE next submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Prescribed Authority, while considering the hardship, took the view that the tenants are owners of property No. 18/3/95, Nala Mantala, Agra and as the petitioner and her husband have alternative accommodation in the said property and there are certain shops, the petitioner shall not suffer any hardship. It is con tended that the said property was sold by a registered sale-deed on 2-12-1997 and this fact was also admitted by the landlord-respondents and after such property having been sold, the petitioner will have no other alternative accommodation to carry on business of sale of 'petha' which she is carrying on in the disputed premises. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no other shop in property No. 25/52 as held by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority.