PUSHPENDRA KUMAR Vs. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the tenant challenging the order dated 4 -4 -1987 passed by the Additional District Judge and the order dated 6 -9 -1986 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge. The petitioner is a tenant in shop No. 42/6, Subhashpura, Station Road, Lalitpur in which he is doing the business of general merchandise. The area of the disputed shop is only 7' x 5'. In the application of the landlord under Section 21 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the release of the aforesaid shop, the need indicated was for the establishment of two sons of Respondent No. 3 who were at the verge of completion of their studies and wanted to establish the business. The need for establishing the chamber of the son who is a practising lawyer was also indicated. It was further stated that the tenant was initially inducted for 11 months but he did not vacate inspite of assurances even though during this period several shops were available to him. The tenant is also creating nuisance and affecting the business of the other sons who are doing their business in the neighbouring shops.

(2.) THE tenant contested the release application on the ground that the landlord does not require the disputed chop as firstly it is not suitable for establishing the lawyers chamber and secondly the other two sons are still studying and even if they require, they can settle with the other son who is already occupying two shops and doing business.

(3.) THE appellate authority affirmed the findings with regard to the bona fide need of the landlord to establish his sons in business. It has been held that out of the four sons of the landlord, the eldest son Suresh Chandra is doing business by the name Ravi General Stores being in occupation of one of the shops in the same building. The second son Prem Chandra is a practising lawyer and is assisting his father. The need of this son to establish the chamber in the disputed shop cannot be considered as the disputed accommodation is too short for establishing a Lawyers' Chamber which can be accommodated in other part of the building where there is sufficient accommodation for this purpose. The third son Subhash Chandra is in possession of two shops and is doing the business by the name Jimi Crockery and Shanti Sports. On consideration of these facts the appellate court came to the conclusion that in any view of the matter the need for establishing one son would remain even if one shop each is considered for all the sons who are doing business. The need of the landlord was held to be bona fide and genuine for the release of the disputed shop. As regards the consideration of comparative hardship, the learned JUDGE was of the view that there is another shop available to the tenant which he has taken on rent from one Nirmal Kumar and, the rent deed brought on record establishes the possession of the tenant on this shop. Apart from this the tenant can make alternative arrangement and would be put to lesser hardship than the landlord.