MOHD.AHMAD KHAN Vs. MIRZA MOHAMMAD ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This petition by the tenant is directed against concurrent orders dated 23.11.2005 and 4.12.2008 by which the release application No. 53 of 1998 filed by the respondent landlord on the ground of personal need under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been allowed by both the Courts below.

(2.) The respondent landlord filed the release application inter alia with the allegation that he was the owner and landlord of the disputed shop where the petitioner was a tenant and his younger son Mohd. Nadeem Mirza was without any vocation though had become of marriageable age therefore, he needs the disputed shop to run a general merchant business for which no other vacant shop is available. It was further asserted that though one shop was got vacated by the landlord earlier from Abdul Khalid but the same is being used as a godown for the business of his wife in the name of Welcome Marriage House and after retiring from the Railways he is helping his wife in the said business. It was further pleaded that the petitioner has acquired a big house where he is also carrying on a business and keeps the disputed shop closed. By amendment it was pleaded that during the pendency of the release application his son had opened a whole sale agency by the name of D.S. Agency and on receipt of goods by the firm it had to be stocked in the shop vacated by Abdul Khalid and the goods of Welcome Marriage House had to be removed to the residential house and in a portion of the said shop his son had also established his office and got it registered but due to scarcity of space his business is suffering tremendously and likewise the business of his wife in the name of Welcome Marriage House was also suffering forcing her to open a Mother Marry Montessori School and after closing down the P.C.O., that premises was being used as the office of the school which was not fit for the need of his son.

(3.) The petitioner tenant contested the application inter alia with the allegation that the house purchased by him is a residential house where he is not running any business. It was further asserted that the son of the landlord was running the D.S. Agency even prior to the filing of the release application and he had no bona fide requirement for the disputed shop and in fact they had alternative shop which was made available by other tenants but was also let out to others.