ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30th March, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Hardoi in Rent Appeal No. 6 of 2006 Ashok Kumar Gupta v. Laxmi Prasad Gupta.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a tenant in the shop owned by opposite -party No. 3 at the rate of Rs. 140/ - per month. The petitioner is running Kirana business in the said shop since 1982. The opposite -party has started the proceedings under Section 21(1)(A) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Rent Act) by mentioning that the younger son of the landlord wants to do business in the said shop, so the petitioner must vacate the shop within the stipulated period. Finally, the matter reached before the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.), Hardoi in P.A. Case No. 4 of 1999 Laxmi Prasad Gupta v. Ashok Kumar Gupta where the petitioner was directed to vacate the said shop. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Hardoi, who passed the impugned order by upholding the judgment of the trial court. Not being satisfied, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) On the other hand, Sri Ravi Nath Tilhari, counsel for the opposite -party No. 3, submits that the need of the opposite -party is greater. Part release of the shop in question is not permissible as Rule 17 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is applicable to the residential accommodation. He further submits that the request for commission was duly considered by the lower court and it was rejected vide order dated 8.12.2009 (page No. 137 of the petition), against which the petitioner has filed the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court bearing Writ Petition No. 163 of 2010 (R/C), which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court. He further submits that the present petition is nothing but is a delaying tactics adopted by the petitioner for not vacating the shop. Lastly, he made a request that the writ petition may kindly be dismissed. In support of his arguments, he has cited the following case -laws: