OM PRAKASH Vs. PRAYAGWATI DEVI AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Nikhil Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the respondents-landlord.

(2.) Present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 1.9.2020 passed by the District Judge, Hathras in UPUB Appeal No. 1 of 2019. Further prayer has been made seeking quashing of the order dated 9.1.2019 passed by the Prescribed Authority / Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hathras in P.A. Case No. 12 of 2004.

(3.) Shorn of details, facts in brief are that the landlord filed release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the petitioner-tenant herein seeking release of the shop in favour of the landlord on the ground of bona fide requirement of the shop no. 1 at Bengali Mandir Ramleela Chauk Veniganj, Hathras for the purpose of business of her younger son Pankaj Agarwal. It was asserted that the tenant is not carrying on any business in the shop in dispute and the same is lying vacant. The petitioner-tenant contested the matter on the ground that no default has been committed in payment of rent; the plaintiff-respondent is not the owner of the shop in question; the shop in question is owned by Swami Thakur Bihari Ji Maharaj Virajman Bangali Mandir, Ramleela Maidan, Hathras and the only role of the plaintiff no. 1 was to collect the rent on behalf of the Trust, therefore, the release application itself was not maintainable at the instance of the plaintiff-landlord-respondent; the respondents are merely Managers of the Trust property which includes the shop in question; Pankaj Agarwal for whose alleged need release is being claimed is gainfully employed in a private job; business is being carried on in the shop and is not lying vacant.