V.K. UNIYAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present case, the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was initiated by the respondent No. 3 in respect of shop No. 50, Ajit Prasad Marg Dehradun, of which the petitioners are the tenants. The tenant late Sri Chandra Kishore Uniyal was doing Ayurvedic Practice in the disputed shop and after his death, his widow claimed to be doing Pharmacy business along with one Shri Triloki Narain Nautiyal.

(2.) THE respondent No. 3 needed the shop to settle his widowed daughter-in-law who was fully qualified and equipped to do computer business. According to the respondent No. 3, the disputed shop was lying locked and the widow of Sri Uniyal was not qualified to do Ayuvedic Practice.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner that the widowed daughter-in-law of the landlord owns and possesses her own shop hearing No. 41/5/2, Ajit Prasad Marg was held to be not available for running computer training business. It was further held that shop No. 39/5/2, Ajit Prasad Marg was also not available as the same was under the tenancy of Kumar Lime Stone since 1967 and business is being carried on in that shop for the last more than two decades. The Appellate Authority further held that the business of manufacturing drugs for which a licence has been obtained by Smt. Nirmala Devi, widow of the deceased tenant is being carried out in the licensed premises at 20, Anand Chowk. Smt. Nirmala Devi being not qualified cannot use the disputed shop for doing Ayurvedic Practice or to use the same for dispensing Ayurvedic medicines.