ADITYA BHARADWAJ Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner claims himself to be a tenant of premises No. B-31/21-A-1 in Mohalla-Lanka, District-Varanasi on paying a rent of Rs. 200/- per month since 1991. Thereafter, he moved an application on 18.06.2004 for allotment of the premises in his favour. The Rent Control Inspector vide his report dated 28.8.2004 has stated that the petitioner was in occupation of the shop. However, Sri Harishchandra Vishwakarma , the landlord moved an application on 18.1.2005 under section 16(1)(b) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the premises in his favour.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner-landlord with regard to alleged need was that his family is big and he needed the shop for establishment of his son Sri Mahendra Narain Vishwakarma in the business of Stationary Goods after renovating premises in dispute which is in a dilapidated condition.

(3.) The release application was contested by the petitioner by filing objection on 28.2.2005 inter alia stating therein that petitioner is in occupation of the premises in dispute with the permission of the previous owner and hence release application is not maintainable under section 16(1)(b) of the Act. It was also stated in the objection that there was no need of the premises in dispute as the present-landlord Shri Harishchandra Vishwakarma has an alternative accommodations available to him namely (i) Vikas Drawing Emporium, Shop No. 3, Vikram Building, Lanka, Varanasi; (ii) Vikas Education, Plot No. 2, Rashmi Nagar, Varanasi; (iii) Vikas U.P. Pen Service, Phoolwala Katra, Bansphatak, Varanasi and a two floor house in the name of his mother of area 1.5 Biswa situated at Shakuntala Devi, Chittupur, Lanka, Varanasi. It was also averred that in one of the room in the premises No. B-31/21-A-1 a tenant namely Sri C.D. Sharma was running a photostat shop had vacated it which was also available to the landlord to settle his son in business, hence the alleged need of the landlord was a mere desire and not a bona fide and that the application filed under section 16(1)(b) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 was barred by time. Hence the order dated 30.3.2005 passed by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Varanasi declaring vacancy in spite of acknowledging that the petitioner was in occupation of the premises with the consent of his earlier landlord is ex-facie illegal.