ANURAG AGARWAL Vs. UPENDRA NATH BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed challenging judgment dated 8.12.2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the release application against the petitioners and the judgment in Misc. Appeal dated 7.8.2010 passed by Addl. District Judge, Court No. 9, Agra dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of the Prescribed Authority. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord filed release application under section 21(1)(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act) vide P.A. Case No. 57 of 2002 with the allegations that the respondent is owner landlord of the premises No. 21/24, Chimman Lal Road, Freeganj, Agra in which Shri Harendra Kumar Agarwal was the tenant and after his death, petitioners are the tenant. According to the respondent, the accommodation in question consists of a hall, tin shed and 3 small rooms over an area of 300 sq. yards on the ground floor of which the petitioners claim to be tenant @ Rs. 1,200/- per month. The accommodation is used for commercial purposes i.e., manufacturing of spare parts of generators.

(2.) The respondent further alleges that his family consists wife, 4 sons. It is stated that the respondent is carrying on business of timber in premises No. 4/162, Bans Darwaza, Kutchery Ghat, Agra and that house is property of joint Hindu family. Though the House No. 4/162 is a big house in which respondent is co-sharer and is carrying on business of timber along with his sons in a accommodation measuring 10 x 15 feets. The business is being run in the name and style of M/s. Baba Timber. Eldest son is carrying on business as a Proprietor and second son Rajiv Bansal is carrying on business as Broker in timber and the premises in dispute is required for settling his two youngest sons, Sanjeev Bansal and Amit Bansal in business.

(3.) The petitioners-tenants filed written statement denying the need of the landlord-respondent. According to the petitioners, respondent has got sufficient accommodation in the building situate near Kutchery Ghat, where he is carrying on timber business along with his sons, the need of two sons is not genuine. They are also carrying business with their father in their own houses near Kutchery Ghat and further asserted that petitioners have got no other accommodation where they can shift their business though attempt for the alternative accommodation was made by them. It was averred that petitioners also gave an offer of leaving half of the front portion of the shop in dispute and thereafter two third of the accommodation to fulfill alleged need of the two sons of landlord-respondent, though according to him the need of the sons was neither bona fide nor genuine. Before the Prescribed Authority, parties filed affidavit and other evidence. Petitioners moved application for inspection of the premises in dispute for the purpose of releasing half portion in favour of the respondent to satisfy alleged need settling sons of respondent.