RAJENDRA PRASAD SHARMA Vs. PRATIBHA RANI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused record.

(2.) The respondent landlady thereafter moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, which was registered as P.A. Case No. 6 of 2004, for release of the shop in dispute on the ground that it was required for establishing her son in business who was unemployed after completion of his study, The application was registered as P.A. Case No. 6 of 2004. On service of the notice, the petitioner contested the release application by filing his written statement and denied allegations of the landlady made in the release application and stated that need of the landlady was neither genuine nor bona fide. He also came out with the case that son of the landlady was not sitting idle but was carrying business of transport alongwith his father, who was owner of a mini truck-Tata 407, bearing registration number U.P. 20A 0377. It was also stated that landlady had another vacant shop in the same vicinity in which she can establish her son in business; that the petitioner had tried to get a vacant shop but was not successful in his efforts and that he had also applied before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for allotment of shop but of no avail.

(3.) The petitioner appears to have also moved an application on 3.5.2010 for amendment in the written statement that landlady has filed release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act without giving six month's prior notice which is mandatory. After inviting objection to it, the court below rejected the amendment application of the petitioner vide order dated 17.5.2010. Thereafter, the release application was decided by the Prescribed Authority vide its judgment and order dated 6.9.2010 holding that petitioner was tenant of the shop in question at the rate of Rs. 900 per month; that son of the landlady was driving mini truck of his father and was not employed independently, therefore, he has a right to establish himself independently in business to augment income of his family. The Court considered the fact that no evidence whatsoever was adduced by the tenant petitioner to the effect that son of the landlady was in permanent service or had income from any other independent source. The Court rather came to the conclusion that the son of the landlady was married and was engaging himself as driver on the truck of his father to earn livelihood for his family and merely because he was driving the truck of his father under compulsion of circumstances would not mean that the landlady cannot think of better future for her son to establish him in independent business, hence need of the landlady was genuine and bona fide.