MOHAMMAD QAMAR Vs. SHAMSHADI BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "Act ") was filed by the landlady for release of the disputed shop on the ground of bonafide need to establish her two grand sons. The petitioner filed written statement and contested the release application. The Prescribed Authority by order dated 9.2.2011 allowed the said release application. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 22 of the Act which was registered as P. A. Appeal No. 13 of 2011 and the same was dismissed by order dated 19.8.2011. Hence, the present writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the need of the respondent-landlady is neither genuine nor bonafide, and the comparative hardship tilts in favour of the petitioner. It was further submitted that the respondent-landlady, apart from two shops, has also got one vacant shop which can be utilized by her to settle her unemployed grand sons namely Mohd. Tareef and Mohd. Tahir.

(3.) Per contra, Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel forthe respondent-landlady has supported the impugned orders passed by the courts below and submitted that the courts below have recorded a finding that the need of the Respondent-landlady is bonafide and genuine, and the comparatives hardship also tilts in her favour, and the said finding is based on record. It was further submitted that the aforementioned third shop is in fact not vacant and is under the tenancy of one Mohd. Lateef who is having cycle store in the said premises. The courts below have recorded a categorical finding that apart from the disputed shop, the petitioner has got two more shops in his possession and in case the petitioner is evicted, he will not suffer much loss.