ASHOK KESARWANI Vs. LALTA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 4.11.2000 passed by 15th Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 31 of 1998.

(2.) The respondent, owner/ landlord of premises No. 133/128 M. Block Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur moved" an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. (hereinafter called the Act), against the petitioner/tenant before the Prescribed Authority for release of the above premises on the ground of his personal need. The case of respondent was that the petitioner was tenant of three shops on ground floor of the premises in question on monthly rental of Rs. 250, in which he runs a shop of building materials and hardware. He started business under the name of a new firm and included in the said firm other persons, who were not his family members as partners. The respondent/landlord was a Doctor and he was running his clinic in premises No. 110/241 R. K. Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. which he had taken on tenancy. He wanted to shift his clinic to his own premises. His one son Satyendra Kumar was running a medical store in mohalla Vijaya Nagar in a tenanted portion. His other son was also a doctor and he runs his clinic in a tenanted portion in mohalla Ratan Lal Nagar. The respondent wanted to shift his sons to the premises in question and thus, required all the three shops for himself and his two sons. The need of respondent was bona fide and genuine. He asked the petitioner to vacate the premises, but he refused.

(3.) The petitioner contested the above application mainly on the ground that all the partners of the firm running business in the premises in question were his family members. He was not running business under the name of M/s. Ashok Trading Construction and Suppliers. The respondent had sufficient accommodation and had no necessity for shifting his clinic. The sons of the respondent had also chosen suitable places for their clinic and medical store and the need of the respondent was not bona fide and genuine.