DR. K.C. GANGWAR Vs. DAVID JACOB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, at the instance of the tenant, seeks the quashing of the order dated 26th March, 2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority by which the application filed by the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for release of the tenanted shop for establishing the two grand sons in business has been allowed. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 30th April, 2010 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 22 of the Act for setting aside the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority has been dismissed. It transpires from the records of the writ petition that an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was filed by the landlord-David Jacob for release of the two tenanted shops for the need of his two grand sons Vikas Jacob and Abhishek Jacob for establishing them in business. It was asserted that Vikas Jacob and Abhishek Jacob, sons of his elder son Deepak Jacob, had studied only upto Intermediate and were unemployed. Vikas Jacob wanted to start a General Store shop while Abhishek Jacob wanted to start a 'Parchuni Shop' and for this purpose the landlord filed the application for release of the two shops. It was asserted that the landlord was likely to suffer greater hardship in case the application was not allowed.

(2.) The Prescribed Authority, on a consideration of the materials filed by the parties, held that the need of the landlord for the two shops for establishing his two grandsons in business was bona fide and that the landlord was likely to suffer greater hardship.

(3.) The tenant filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court by the order dated 30th April, 2010. The Appellate Court in its judgment and order dated 30th April, 2010 has considered the three submissions advanced by learned counsel for the tenant. The first submission that was advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, which is noted in paragraph 10 of the judgment, is that the need of the grandsons cannot be considered since they are not family members. The second submission that was advanced was that the petitioner by hook or by crook wanted to get the tenanted shops vacated so that he could sell them and in this connection an affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar was also filed. The third submission was that the Prescribed Authority had not considered the partial release of the disputed occupation.