SHIV DEVI Vs. SHARDA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "Act") was filed by the respondent No. 1 for release of the disputed shop. The respondent No. 1 set up the need of her son Ravi Bansal for carrying on the business of electrical goods from the disputed shop. Written statement was filed by the petitioner and contested the release application. The Prescribed Authority by order dated 6.12.2010 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 Rent Control Appeal No. 5 of 2011 and the same was dismissed by order dated 12.8.2011. Hence, the present writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the need of the respondent is neither genuine nor bona fide, and the comparative hardship tilts in favour of the petitioner. It was further submitted that the Ravi Bansal (son of the respondent No. 1) is already carrying on the business of Thekedari and Insurance, as such, he does not require the disputed shop. It is further submitted that the Ravi Bansal is also carrying on the business along with his brother Rajiv Bansal from the premises No. 16/169.

(2.) Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned orders passed by the Court below and submitted that the Courts below have recorded a finding that the need of the respondent No. 1 is bona fide and genuine, and the comparatives hardship also tilts in favour of the respondent No. 1 and the said finding is based on record. The Court below has recorded a finding that although the son of the respondent No. 1 is doing businesses of Thekedari and Insurance but the income from the said business is very meager and not sufficient to support himself, therefore, Ravi Bansal (son of the respondent No. 1) wants to augment his income by starting a new business from the disputed shop, therefore, he cannot be denied to carry on the business of electrical goods. It is further submitted that since the petitioner is having a diploma in electrical engineering, therefore, he wants to carry on the business of electrical goods from the disputed shop. He further submitted that apart from the disputed shop, the petitioners have got two more shops in their possession and also own a residential house.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the record.