SHYAM MOHAN SINGH Vs. VISHRAM RATHORE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 17th July, 2006 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 shop was allowed. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 24th November, 2011 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner for setting aside the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority was dismissed.

(2.) THE landlords -Vishram Rathore and Mukhram Rathore had filed the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act with the allegations that they were the owners and landlords of Premises No. 80/4, Block No. 8, Govind Nagar, Kanpur which they had purchased by the registered sale deed dated 5th February, 1999; that the opposite party was a tenant of Shop No. 3 on the ground floor; that initially respondent No. 2 -Mukhram Rathore was a tenant of Shop No. 4 in Premises No. 80/4, Block No. 8, Govind Nagar, Kanpur and was carrying the business of sale and repair of electronics goods from the said shop; that after purchase of the premises in February, 1999, the landlords had filed Case No. 45 of 1999 against Ram Swaroop, who was the tenant of Shop No. 5 in the building for release of the shop and pursuant to the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, Ram Swaroop vacated the shop; that respondent No. 2 -Mukhram Rathore extended his business of sale and repair of electronics goods to shop No. 5; that respondent No. 1 -Vishram Rathore who was in government service retired on 30th September, 2000; that the eldest son of Vishram Rathore Sanjay Kumar is assisting respondent No. 2 -Mukhram Rathore in his business from Shop Nos. 4 and 5; that there is not much income and so Vishram Rathore and his remaining two sons Rajesh Kumar and Satish Kumar desire to set up independent business to augment their income so as to be able to meet the needs of the family; that Shop No. 3, therefore, is bona fide required for satisfying the need of Vishram Rathore and his son Rajesh Kumar who would be establishing General Store in the said shop and that the need to establish the third son Satish Kumar will still not be satisfied.

(3.) THE Prescribed Authority allowed the application by the order dated 17th July, 2006 against which the tenant filed an appeal which was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 21st November, 2011.