ASHOK KUMAR Vs. ANIL KUMAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 14th November, 2005 passed by the Prescribed Authority by which the application filed by the landlord under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for. release of the shop in question as it was bona fide required by the landlord for establishing his younger son in business, was allowed. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 8th January, 2007 by which the District Judge dismissed the Appeal filed by the petitioners for setting aside the aforesaid order. A perusal of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority indicates that the need of the landlord for establishing his son in business has been found to be genuine and bona fide. The Prescribed Authority also found as a fact that the landlord was likely to suffer greater hardship than the tenants in case the shop was not released. The District Judge has confirmed these findings in the Appeal filed by the tenants for setting aside the aforesaid order.

(2.) The plea of the tenants that the landlord could have established his son in business from a shop that had fallen vacant but was subsequently let out to another tenant Musabbar Ali has not been accepted by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority. What has, however, been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the shop which had earlier been given to Musabbar Ali was vacated by him and it was let out to another tenant Lalu who was running the business in the name and style of 'Lalu Radium Centre' and this fact has been stated in the Supplementary Affidavit filed during the pendency of the writ petition. In support of this contention learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the certificate issued by the Zila Panchayat that a shop had been allotted to Musabbar Ali and the assessment record that the shop given on rent by the landlord to Musabbar Ali was in the tenancy of Lalu. A supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed by the landlord to the said affidavit in which the allegations contained in the supplementary-affidavit filed by the tenants have been denied and it has been stated that wrong entries had been made in the assessment register which were subsequently corrected and the name of Musabbar Ali is shown as the tenant. An affidavit of Musabbar Ali has also been filed stating that he is continuing as a tenant in the said shop.

(3.) The Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Court have found as a fact that the need of the landlord was genuine and bona fide as he wanted to establish his son in business. Such a need has been held to be genuine and bona fide by the Courts. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any perversity in the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Court.