KRISHNA KUMAR MAHESHWARI Vs. ASHA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ayush Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4.3.2020 passed by the Additional District Judge Court No.22 Kanpur Nagar dismissing the Rent Appeal No. 96 of 2011 and affirming the order of the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar dated 31.5.2011 passed in P.A. Case No. 6 of 2010 (Smt . Asha Gutpa Vs. Krishna Kumar Maheshwari), the tenant-petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) Briefly stated the relevant facts as reflected from the record are that the shop in question at premises no. 53/7 (new no. 53/19) Nayaganj, Kanpur, is under the tenancy of the tenant-petitioner on rent of Rs. 1000 per month. The premises in question is old one and is covered by the provisions of U.P. Urban Building Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The respondent-landlord filed an application on 11.6.2010, before the prescribed authority under Section 21 (1) of the Act setting-up the need of her son namely, Arpit Gupta, for doing on-line trading/share business from the tenement in question. The case was registered as P.A. Case No. 6 of 2010. It is stated in the release application that the husband of the landlady was running his business in a rented shop at premises no. 51/46 Nayaganj, Kanpur, who was being harassed by his landlord and besides it, her three sons namely Arpit Gupta, Arjit Gupta and Anubhav Gupta, were also in need of the disputed shop, more particularly, her son -Arpit Gupta was having the need for running the shop for on-line trading/share business and therefore, need of the landlord with regard to disputed tenement is bona fide and genuine. It is further stated that in the application the tenant-petitioner has unnecessarily held up the disputed shop and is not doing any business in the same.