MOIN UDDIN Vs. IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.1.2002, passed by the appellate court in M.C.A. No. 18 of 1998 filed by the landlord Annexure-9 to the writ petition, whereby the appellate court has set aside the order dated 13.1.1998 passed by the prescribed authority.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner, who is a tenant in shop in dispute, is carrying on a business of repairing of Cycle and Rikshaw in the shop in dispute and it is also the case set up by the petitioner-tenant that his tenancy is coming down from more than 40 years. The landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act') on the ground that his son Rajeev, who is not good in education, is 19 years old and now is not inclined to study further, therefore, the shop in dispute is required for starting a new General Merchant shop for his son and the father will also help in running the business of his son, which has been registered as P.A. Case No. 62 of 1994. It is also stated that another shop is also available to the tenant adjoining to the shop in dispute, where petitioner can easily shift his business and also the petitioner does not carry any business in the shop in dispute, therefore, if the shop in dispute is not released in favour of the landlord there will be more hardship in his favour.

(3.) The prescribed authority after the exchange of the pleadings and evidence on record has rejected the application vide its order dated 13.1.1998 holding that the shop in dispute under the tenancy of the petitioner tenant for more than 42 years and he is carrying on his business of repairing of Cycle and Rikshaw and he has earned a goodwill, the shop in dispute is situated in the market where mostly shops of repairing of Cycle and Rikshaw are there and thus shop in dispute is not fit for starting a new shop of General Merchant as well as the need of the petitioner-tenant is more than the landlord as he is working in Railway department and his son is studying. It is also stated that during the pendency of the application, the father i.e., the landlord, died therefore the need, if any, stood vanished. The prescribed authority after referring certain decisions of this Court has come to the conclusion that on the basis of the aforesaid law, the need of the landlord cannot be said to be bona fide and thus rejected the application filed by the landlord.