PARMANAND DEAD Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY MUNSIF CITY MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the above mentioned writ petitions are by tenant. Writ Petition No. 11676 of 1981 is directed against the order dated 24.9.1981 passed by the prescribed authority, Meerut respondent No. 1 while by means of other Writ Petition No. 27484 of 1995 the petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 15.9.1995 passed by the IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Meerut passed in S.C.C. Revision No. 345 of 1982 and the order dated 21.8.1982 passed by small cause court. Meerut, respondent No. 6 in S.C.C. Suit No. 1524 of 1973.

(2.) The dispute relates to shop No. 437, Bazar Bajaja. Meerut city whose original tenant was Parmanand, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners of Writ Petition No. 27484 of 1995.

(3.) An application under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act) was moved by the landlords on 9.4.1969 seeking permission for the eviction of the tenant. Parmanand, from the shop in dispute. Eight other applications under Section 3 of the old Act were also moved against other tenants for their eviction. The landlord's case set out in those applications was that they were having a very big and large family and the accommodation in their ancestral house was not sufficient to cater their growing needs. It was further alleged that the landlord's family had in their possession two rented shops wherein Sarafa business was being carried on by their father in one shop and the other four brothers were doing cloth business in the other shop. On account of enlargement of family, additional business accommodation was required as such the landlords purchased the disputed property with the object that they would remodel It and put the same to their personal use. Four shops bearing Nos. 435, 436, 438 and 439 were to be converted into two big shops to be run by the two brothers while one shop bearing No. 437 (the subject-matter of the present proceeding) after its demolition was to be utilized for converting the same into eight feet wide passage by including one feet area on each side from the two adjacent shops. Four residential portions bearing No. 85 to 88 were required to be demolished and reconstructed for residential use for their brothers and their families while the parents and youngest brother were to continue to live as usual in the ancestral house.