SITARAM PAHARIYA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE JHANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute is regarding shop No. 92 Sarrafa Bazar, Jhansi. The petitioner moved an application under Section 21 (1] (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for the release of the said shop against the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, being release application No. 116 of 1992. The application was allowed by the prescribed authority on 4.8.1994 by Judgment, Annexure-9 to the petition. Aggrieved by the order of release, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 preferred Appeal No. 26 of 1994 under Section 22 of the Act which has been allowed by respondent No. 1 on 16.11.1995 and application for release has been rejected by Judgment, Annexure-10 to the petition. The landlord, therefore, has filed this petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the request that order, Annexure-10 to the petition be quashed and order, Annexure-9 to the petition of the prescribed authority be restored.

(2.) I have heard Sri M. S. Plpersanla and Sri Sanjay Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. N. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) There is very little dispute regarding the facts. The petitioner-landlord have four sons, namely, Rajendra, Rakesh, Shrikant and Sanjeev whose ages when the application was moved were between 32 and 24 years. The petitioner had only one shop in which he is carrying on the business of saraffa. The elder son of the petitioner Sri Rajendra is carrying on the cloth business in Mohalla Chaudharyana, Jhansi, in a rented shop of which the rent is Rs. 400 per month. The second son Shrikant of the petitioner had taken a shop at a rental of Rs. 800 per month and is carrying on the business of readymade garments in that shop. It is alleged by the petitioner that his third and fourth sons Rakesh and Sanjeev have to be settled in the business and they are without any employment ; that they also intend to start the business of sarrafa and for that purpose the disputed shop is required ; that the petitioner has no other shop or the place for the business and, therefore, the need of the petitioner is bona fide.