LAWS(ALL)-2010-10-138

SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. ASHOK KUMAR KANSAL

Decided On October 04, 2010
SUSHIL KUMAR Appellant
V/S
ASHOK KUMAR KANSAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rajiv Gutpa Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Jain advocate assisted by Sri Sumit Daga Counsel for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed by Sushil Kumar son of Bihari Lal claiming himself to be the tenant of the shop Nos. 1100 and 1101.

(2.) The facts in narrow compass are that the father of the petitioner Sri Bihari Lal and his uncle Subhash Chandra had taken the aforesaid two shops on rent on 13.2.1975 and 12.10.1982 respectively. Both the shops were allotted to them by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.

(3.) The shops aforesaid were purchased by one Ashok Kumar Kansal, advocate, respondent No. 1 on 16.10.1995. He preferred a release application under section 21(1)(9) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 stating that Sushil Kumar was the tenant in the two shops and he having purchased four small shops No. 1099, 1100, 1101 and 1102 having total area 24.5 sq. yards. Out of which two shop Nos. 1100 and 1101 are in dispute in the present writ petition. The petitioner contested the release application by filing written statements on 1.10.1993 inter alia stating that he is the tenant of the shop and has been paying the rent regularly. He also stated that the shops were being used for the small business of Masaley of spices and that release application was filed before the expiry of three years from the date of purchase of the shops. It was also stated that the first floor of the aforesaid shops was under the ownership of Sri B.S. Negi; that there was no space for establishing chamber by the landlord for his profession of advocacy and that his family is depended upon the small business carried out by him in that shop in question. It was lastly stated that the petitioner has goodwill in the area and that the landlord having no bona fide need of the shop as he has already purchased a big house No. 254/1 in Gali No. 1, Nehru Nagar Garh Road, Meerut. As regards comparative hardship was concerned, the petitioner took a stand that he was working for his old father and his infirm uncle and thus became tenant as heir of his father.