SHRI GANDHI ASHRAM KHADI BHANDAR AND ANR. AND AJIT KUMAR JAIN Vs. XIX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Misc. Writ Petition No. 34048 of 1999 has been filed by Shri Gandhi Ashram Khadi Bhandar, questioning the validity of order dated 16.05.1999 passed by the Prescribed Authority, allowing application moved on behalf of landlord under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and the order of its affirmance dated 28.07.1999, in appeal under Section 22 of the said Act. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34519 of 1999 has been filed by the petitioner, questioning the validity of order dated 16.05.1999 passed by the Prescribed Authority, allowing application moved on behalf of landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and the order of its affirmance dated 28.07.1999, in appeal under Section 22 of the said Act.

(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that respondent No. 3, Anil Kumar Mittal is the landlord of premises No. 125, Sotiganj, Begaum Bridge Road, Meerut. In one portion of the said building, Shri Gandhi Ashram Khadi Bhandar has been there as tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 260/ -. In the same very premises, there is shop of Ajit Kumar Jain on monthly rent of Rs. ,125/ -. Respondent No. 3 filed P.A. Case Nos. 166/92 and 167/92 against Shri Gandhi Ashram Khadi Bhandra and Ajit Kumar Jain. In both the release application so moved, case of the landlord has been that he intends to open departmental store after reconstructing the premises in question; he bona fidely needs the premises in question , as his other business is too small. Release applications of the landlord was opposed by both the tenants by filing written statement. Precise stand taken by the tenants was that the need of the landlord was not at all bona fide and genuine; he had got extra source of income. Recently, he had sold his house situated at the first floor portion of the disputed premises, which was lying vacant; he could have carried on his business on the first floor. Additional objection was filed contending therein that the landlord has been carrying on business at Sadar Kabari Bazar; he can carry on business of departmental store from the said place. After the objections, written statement and additional objections had been filed, landlord filed his replica and contended therein that the said portion known as Marwari Bhojanalaya was vacated after long drawn litigation and by the time it was vacated, it had come to dilapidated condition, as such in order to avoid any mis -happening, such dilapidated portion of the building was got down, and the same is not at all befitting for the requirement. From the side of landlord his affidavit along with balance sheet, sale deed dated 28.02.1992 and other voluminous documents were filed. From the side of Gandhi Ashram, affidavit of Kr. Ganga Prasad Singh, Kalp Nath Rai and R.S. Gupta had been filed. Similarly, in P.A. Case No. 167 of 1992 affidavits on the similar line had been filed.

(3.) PLEADINGS inter se parties have been exchanged; thereafter, with the consent of the parties, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal.