BABU NANDAN Vs. IIND A.D.J.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 27.2.1998, allowing the appeal and rejecting the release application filed by the landlord -respondent. The petitioner filed an application for release of the disputed accommodation under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) with the allegation that he has three sons namely, Raj Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Arun Kumar. Raj Kumar and Ashok Kumar were married, Arun Kumar was unemployed. He was studying in B.Com. The petitioner himself was carrying on business of watch repairing in a very small shop of 7' x 6' with the assistance of Raj Kumar, his eldest son. He needs the shop to set up his son Arun Kumar. The tenant Dr. G.R. Malik is running clinic in the disputed shop. He owns several property and can shift to another property. The tenant contested the application and denied the averments made by him. The Prescribed Authority, on consideration of the material evidence on record, allowed the application on 20.10.1984 on the finding that the disputed accommodation is required by the landlord to establish his sons in business. The tenant -respondent filed appeal against the said judgment. The Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and rejected the application filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner has not disclosed the nature of the business in his release application.

(2.) THE Prescribed Authority is to consider the entire facts and circumstances of the case and if the accommodation is required for carrying on the business, if the landlord has not disclosed the precise nature of the business which he wants to start, it cannot be held that the landlord does not require the premises for the business purpose. In Raj Kumar Khaitan and others v. Bibi Zubaida Khatun and another : AIR 1995 S.C. 576 : 1996 SCFBRC 107, it has been held that it is not necessary for the landlord to indicate the precise nature of the business to be set up by him or for whom it is required. Similar view was expressed in Shamse Alam v. District Judge, Gorakhpur and others : 1996 (1) A.R.C. 525.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the writ petition the respondent, who was running the clinic in dispute, has also been expired. It is contended that his sons or family members are not using the said accommodation for running the clinic. In view of the above the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.2.1988 is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 1 shall decide the appeal afresh, keeping in view the observations made above and in accordance with law, within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.