GANDHI ASHRAM KHADI BHANDAR Vs. BRIJ NANDAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. A. Khan, J. Sri Gandhi Ashram Khadi Bhandar, Allahabad by way of this petition has prayed for quashing the judgment and order dated 11-5-2001 passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 92 of 2000 and the order dated 20-5-2000 passed by the Prescribed Authority in P. A. Case No. 41 of 1995.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Sri Brij Nandan Prasad, Respondent No. 1 had moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 against the petitioner for release of the property on the ground that the originally property in question belongs to the mother of the Respondent No. 1 and after her death the Respondent No. 1 and his brother Harihar Prasad became the owners of the said building by mutual family settlement dated 10-8-1994, the house in question came to the share of the Respondent No. 1, Brij Nandan Prasad and Sri Gandhi Ashram had been the tenant of this property on a monthly rent of Rs. 300 per month since, 1952. At that time Brij Nandan Prasad Respondent No. 1 was a minor and was not married. Accordingly, he was not in need of the shop in question. THE Respondent No. 1 was married in the year 1955 and now his family consists of his wife, five sons and two daughters of age group of 24 to 35 years. One of his married sons Rajeev Kumar sustained serious injuries resulting in the loss of his voice and is also unable to move and is thus the aforesaid son Rajiv Kumar is the liability on the landlord. THE second and third sons of the landlord are also married and other remaining two sons had been studying and are likely to join the business one of the sons, namely ; Praveen Kumar had done Computer course. THE case of Brij Nandan Prasad is that he has got himself enrolled as an Advocate and his source of income had been meagre and not sufficient enough to meet his liability. THE income of hotel is not sufficient for his third son and his family while other sons had nothing to do with the said business. THE landlord, therefore, prayed that the need in respect of the premises in question is genuine and bona fide and, therefore, prayed that the property in question be released in his favour. THE application for release of the shop was contested by the petitioner who filed objections on the release application and denied the assertion of bona fide need of the landlord. However, the relationship as tenant with the landlord is not very seriously denied. It has been pleaded that Brij Nandan Prasad had been the Advocate and it is also wrong to say that his sons are unemployed. THE landlord has a very big hotel which always remain crowded with customers and the landlord has a very good income for himself and his family members. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner Sri Gandhi Ashram is a registered Charitable institution and was doing business for the benefit of general public and acquired good-will and reputation of its business. It has further been pleaded that the provision of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 are not applicable to the building in question.

(3.) THE first point that has been raised before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the provision of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 are not applicable to the building in question as Gandhi Ashram, the petitioner is a public Charitable character and it is a public religious institution and therefore, exempted by virtue of Section 2 (bb) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. THE section lays down that nothing in this Act shall apply to the following namely : "2. Exemption from operation of Act.- (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to the following namely : - (a) any building of which the Government or a local authority or a public sector corporation ; or a Cantonment Board is the landlord ; or (b) any building belonging to or vested in a recognized educational institution ; or (bb) any building belonging to or vested in a public charitable or public religious institution. (bbb) any building belonging to or vested in a waqf- alal-aulad;"