ANIL KUMAR Vs. VIJAY SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This petition by the tenant is directed against concurrent orders dated 19.8.2008 and 173.2009 by which the release application filed by the respondent landlord under section 21(1)(a) and (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (herein after referred to as the 'Act') has been allowed by both the Courts below.

(2.) Admittedly Smt. Shanti Devi (since deceased) was the owner and landlord of shop No. 1013/2 Gali Durga Chand, Chauk Bazar, Mathura who filed an application for release under section 21(1)(a) and (b) of the Act against the petitioner who became a tenant after death of his father. On the death of Smt. Shanti Devi, the contesting respondent No. 1 became its landlord. The release application was filed inter alia with the allegation that her son, Vijai Singh Verma has been a practising Advocate in the district of Mathura since 1984 and he has been dealing with his clients from the chamber situated in his residential house, but since it was a small chamber having no space for library, clerk etc., the disputed shop was required for opening of his chamber. It was stated that he had a big family of two sons and a daughter and to meet the expenses he had to advance his profession for which he required the said shop. It was further alleged that the shop in dispute is old and in dilapidated condition and she wants to demolish and reconstruct it for which she has the capacity and has also proceeded for sanctioning of map from the Development Authority. The petitioner contested the release application denying the need of the son. It was stated that Sri Vijai Sigh was only an enrolled lawyer and was looking after his personal cases only and in fact was engaged in the business of silver ornaments. It was further stated that he has been operating his lawyer's chamber from a huge hall from the premises situated in Gali Rawaliya Mandi Chowk which is a palatial house. It was further stated that adjacent to the disputed shop, another shop had been vacated by the outgoing tenant Gokul Chand which remained in the possession of the son of the landlady and apart from that rooms on the first floor of the disputed shop were available. It was further contended that the disputed shop had a frontage of only 5' and therefore was not fit for chamber. It was further pleaded that the disputed shop was not in a dilapidated condition so as to require demolition and reconstruction. During pendency of the case, Smt. Shanti Devi died, whereupon Vijay Singh became sole owner and landlord. After the parties led their evidence, the application was allowed by both the Courts below on the ground that the landlord required the disputed accommodation for his chamber which he proposes to build after demolishing the present shop and the adjacent vacant shop.

(3.) It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that both the Courts below completely failed to take into consideration that the landlord had not approached the Court with clean hands in as much as he had suppressed the availability of the vacant adjacent shop and purposely did not disclose the measurement of the chamber which he was operating since two decades.