SARJU PRASAD Vs. SMT. RABIA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, none appears for the contesting respondent even in the revised list. The respondent landlady filed an application for release under section 21(1)(a) and (b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 inter alia with the allegation that she purchased the disputed accommodation from the previous owner where the petitioner was a tenant of a shop at Rs. 80/- per month. The petitioner was earlier operating a floor mill and due to vibration, the shop is in a dilapidated condition which is required by her to settle her unemployed son Shams Arif who has completed his B.Sc. decree in 1999 and despite several efforts could not find any Job. The petitioner tenant contested the said application inter alia with the allegation that now he is doing a general merchandise business from the disputed shop which is the sole livelihood for his family and the landlord have a huge shopping complex where his son could be settled and in fact the son is engaged in private tuition and is earning and therefore there is no need and in case the application is allowed, the petitioner would suffer greater hardship.

(2.) After exchange of pleadings, the prescribed authority rejected the release application vide order dated 20th of January, 2004. The resultant appeal has been allowed by the impugned order.

(3.) The basic argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the landlord had become the owner of shop No. 132/2 (new No. 172), Hingan Katra, Jhansi and therefore even there was any need, her son could be settled in the said shop and the Appellate Court was not justified in holding otherwise.