PRADEEP KUMAR GARG Vs. ANIL KUMAR GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants have filed this petition for quashing the judgment and order dated 4th October, 2011 by which the Appeal filed by the landlord for setting aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the application filed by the landlord under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for release of the shop has been allowed and a direction has been issued for eviction of the tenants. The landlord had filed the application under section 21(1)(a) of the Act for release of the tenanted shop measuring 10 x 30 feet situated at Navyug Market, Ghaziabad. The need set up for the shop in the application was for establishing his son Chetan Garg in an independent cloth business. The release application was contested by the tenants and it was asserted that the landlord had in his possession another vacant shop measuring 10 x 10 feet which was not disclosed in the release application. It was also asserted that the son of the landlord did not bona fide require the shop. The landlord, however, asserted that the room measuring 10 x 10 feet pointed out by the tenants was a godown and not a shop. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority, a shop on the first floor of the building in the tenancy of M/s. Dev Steel fell vacant. The tenants moved an Amendment Application on 25th May, 2010 for bringing this fact on record in the reply to the release application but the Prescribed Authority rejected the Amendment Application observing that this fact will be considered at the time of hearing of the application.

(2.) The Prescribed Authority by the order dated 8th June, 2010 rejected the release application filed by the landlord on the ground that the son of the landlord could establish his business from the shop on the first floor vacated by M/s. Dev Steel and also from the shop on the ground floor measuring 10 x 10 feet.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the landlord filed an Appeal under section 22 of the Act which has been allowed by the judgment and order dated 4th October, 2011. The Appellate Court noticed the contention of the landlord that the shop on the first floor vacated by M/s. Dev Steel was not suitable for doing business and the other shop pointed out by the tenants measuring 10 x 10 feet was actually a godown and not a shop. The Appellate Court also observed that the landlord had made an offer to the tenants to occupy the shop on the first floor vacated by M/s. Dev Steel as also the godown measuring 10 x 10 feet but this offer was not accepted by the tenants. The Appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority holding that the landlord bona fide required the shop in dispute for establishing his son in business with option to the tenants, should they so desire, to take possession of the shop on the first floor vacated by M/s. Dev Steel and the godown measuring 10 x 10 feet.