VIDYAWATI Vs. ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, LAKHIMPUR KHERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the prayer that by a writ of certiorari, Judgment and order dated 02-09-2009 (Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Lakhimpur Kheri, may be quashed.

(2.) The brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, are that the applicants, Ram Gopal Shekhar and Krishna Gopal Shekhar, moved an application under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), with the prayer that the shop in question may be released in favour of the applicants after eviction of the opposite parties on the ground that they are owner-landlords of the shop in question as detailed and described in the application and the opposite party is the tenant in the said shop at the monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. When the said shop was let out to the opposite party, it was not required for the business purpose. Now, the applicant No. 1 has three sons, aged about 23 years, 21 years and 19 years, and the applicant No. 2 has two sons, aged about 22 years and 20 years. The applicants have to engage their sons in the business, but, at present, Rajat Shekhar, eldest son of the applicant No. 1, is eager to carry on business and he has attained marriageable age. He intends to carry on business of motor spare parts, but, due to non-availability of the shop, the applicants could not get engage him in the business of his liking and he was got admitted in M.Com. The need for the shop in question, for carrying on business of the motor spare parts by Rajat Shekhar, is genuine and bonafide. The opposite party, Smt. Vidyawati, is aged about 70 years and she does not carry on any business in the said shop. She used to carry on business of kerosene oil earlier in the said shop, but, now she has shifted her business at Garhi Road. She is not in need of the said shop. If the shop in question is not released, the applicants would suffer greater hardship than the opposite party.

(3.) The opposite party, Smt. Vidyawati, has filed her written statement and has denied the allegations made in the said application. Her version is that the applicants have not shown the boundaries of the shop in question correctly, and she has mentioned the correct boundaries of the said shop in her written statement. The applicants are the land-lords of the said shop and she is the tenant therein at the monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. When the applicants refused to receive the rent, it is being deposited in the Rent Misc. Case No. 3 of 1995 in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kheri. All adult members of the family of applicants are carrying on their separate business. The applicants have several shops, which have been let out. The details of some of the shops and the business being carried out therein have been mentioned in para 15 of the written statement. Sri Dwarikadhish Flour Mill of Sri Rajat Shekhar is situated at L.R.P. Road, Lakhimpur and he is carrying on his business separately. Sri Rajat Shekhar is also carrying on business of ornaments at M/s Krishna Aabhushan Bhandar, situated at Mohalla-Sarafa Bazar, Lakhimpur. Richa Shekar, wife of Rajat Shekhar and Divya Shekhar, wife of Gaurav Shekhar, are the partners in the said firm. The need of Sri Rajat Shekhar for the shop in question is not bonafide and genuine. Her husband was in Indian Army Service and he scarified his life for the country and became a Martyr. She was appointed dealer by Indian Oil Corporation and she is carrying on her business from the shop in question. Her oil depot is situated at Garhi Road, but, the main sale centre is situated in the said shop. In fact, her age is about 50 years and it is not correct that her age is about 70 years. She is widow of a soldier and she has no other place to carry on her business and the said business is the main source of her livelihood. The point of ownership of the disputed shop is also involved and the Prescribed Authority has no jurisdiction to hear the case. The O.S. No. 428 of 2000 is also pending between the parties. The said application is liable to be rejected.