RAM PAL SINGH Vs. VIVEK NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri B.D. Madhyan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Om Prakash, Advocate on behalf of the Petitioners, and Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Saran, Advocate on behalf of Respondents.

(2.) This is tenant writ petition. Application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by the land-lords of the premises in respect of five shops together being P.A. Case No. 3 of 2002. The shops are situate at Gadh Road, Meerut. According to the land-lords, they had obtained post graduate degree in medical sciences and they wanted to establish their independent clinic in the aforesaid shops for examination of patients and operation theatre etc. They would use these five shops together after necessary alteration. It was stated that except for the aforesaid five shops, the land lords did not have any alternative accommodation available with them for the purpose.

(3.) The application so filed by the land-lord was contested by the tenant Petitioners and it was contended that the landlords were owners of large number of properties, they were infact carrying on their profession from two different shops, which were in their tenancy. They also had shops available with them in Yadu Hotel of which they were co-owners and even otherwise, they had open piece of land and residential houses, where such profession of Doctor could be legally carried on. It was stated that the tenants had been carrying on business from the shops in question for the last more than 30 years and it would be too harsh to ask the tenants to vacate the shops in question. Reference was also made to the engagement of the land-lords in the hospitals situate in Noida. Therefore, it is stated that need set up by the landlords was not bona fide.