JOGENDRA SINGH Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners against the judgment and order dated 2.7.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Bijnor in Rent Appeal No. 11 of 2009 upholding the judgment and order dated 29.9.2009 passed by the Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 04 of 1998, whereby the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (herein after referred to as the Act) of the Respondents-landlord has been allowed.

(2.) An application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was filed by the Respondent No. 1 Sunil Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent') on the ground of bona fide and genuine need for release of the disputed shop. The Petitioners in their written statement refuted the averments made in the plaint. The Prescribed Authority after considering the material on record allowed the said application by order dated 22.9.2009. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order the Petitioners filed an Appeal which was registered as Rent Appeal No. 11 of 2009 and the same was dismissed. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the need of the Respondents-landlord is neither bona fide nor genuine as the Respondent is already carrying on his independent business at Kotdwar (Uttrakhand). It is further submitted that the Respondent alongwith his brothers had sold two shops in the year 1994 and 1996, as such it cannot be said that the need of the Respondent is genuine and bona fide. It is further submitted that the partition decree is collusive.