BHAGWAN DAS Vs. SURENDRA PRAKASH AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri R.K. Ojha assisted by Sri Arun Kumar Tiwari, Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashish Agrawal appearing for landlord respondent and perused the record. The petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of judgment and order dated 18.8.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Etawah in P.A. appeal No. 9 of 2008. He has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the aforesaid order and in addition a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in any manner in peaceful possession and occupation of petitioner in the shop in question.

(2.) Respondent landlord Surendra Prakash Agrawal filed P.A. suit No. 16 of 2004, under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for eviction of petitioner from the shop in question which was initially given to him at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month sometimes in 1960. The rent was thereafter enhanced to Rs. 100/- per month. P.A. suit No. 16 of 2004 was dismissed by Civil Judge (SD), Etawah vide judgment and order dated 22.7.2008 holding the question of bona fide need and comparative hardships in favour of the petitioner tenant. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the landlord respondent filed P.A. appeal No. 9 of 2008 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Etawah which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 18.8.2010 setting aside the order passed by the Civil Judge (SD), Etawah in P.A. suit No. 16 of 2004. By the order impugned, the petitioner has been directed to hand over possession of the shop in question to the landlord within a period of three months and a further direction has been issued to pay rent of two years prior to taking possession of the shop as required under section 21 of the Act.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through judgment of the Court below and submits that landlord Surendra Prakash Agrawal filed P.A. suit No. 16 of 2004 under section 21(1)(a) of the Act on 6.11.2004 stating that petitioner is tenant of the shop in question on rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month and also due rent w.e.f. 1st January, 2002 alongwith water tax and house tax since 13.2.1981. It is further stated that in violation of condition for opening the shop of Atishbazi. However, shop in question was given for the purpose of business of general merchant, that the landlord is residing on the first floor and due to old age he wants to open a shop where he is residing. He is also required to take care of his ailing wife and one grand son namely Sharad Agrawal who is handicapped, that for his survival and for establishment of his grand son he needs the shop under the tenancy of the petitioner. It is also averred that tenant is having one another shop situated in Sri Shanker Jee Ka Mandir from where he is doing business and keeping the shop in question closed; that there is no other shop available except the shop in question rented to the petitioner and that he is also ready to two years of rent toward compensation as provided in section 21 of the Act for this purpose.