K GOPAL Vs. SUDARSHAN DEVI BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, at the instance of the tenant, seeks the quashing of the order dated 4th March, 2009 by which the Prescribed Authority has allowed the application filed by the respondent-landlady under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the '1972 Act') for release of the shop. The petition also seeks the quashing of the judgment and order dated 7th January, 2010 by which the appeal filed by the tenant under Section 22 of the 1972 Act for setting aside the aforesaid order has been dismissed.

(2.) The disputed shop was let out to the petitioner-tenant by the respondent landlady and for this purpose a lease deed dated 3rd May, 1972 was executed between the parties which was registered on 31st May, 1972. The shop was given on rent to the petitioner for a period of five years on a monthly rent of Rs.150/- with effect from 5th June, 1972 with the condition that The United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the '1947 Act') or any other law coming in its place shall not apply to the shop. An option was also given to the tenant to renew the deed for a further period of five years without any enhancement of rent.

(3.) The application under Section 21(1)(a) of the 1972 Act was filed by the landlady on 3rd January, 2008 for release disputed shop as it was bonafide required for her younger son Pankaj for establishing him in independent business with the allegation that the opposite party was continuing as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.600/-; that Pankaj was married and had one son and one daughter; that presently Pankaj was assisting his elder brother and his father in the business of making silver ornaments but he required the shop as he needed to have an independent business; there was no vacant shop available with the landlady from where Pankaj could be established in business; that the opposite party-tenant had a big building in Gali Dashavatar Vrindavan-Mathura where he was not only residing but was also running a Medical Clinic; that the opposite party was also a Medical Consultant and it was not necessary for him to have a separate clinic since he could attend to his patients from his residence and even otherwise, the opposite party was sitting in the disputed shop for two hours only in the evening and that the landlady was likely to suffer greater hardship in case the application was not allowed whereas the tenant was not likely to suffer any hardship.