BIMAL KUMAR JAIN Vs. SURESH CHANDRA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 10th July, 2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority by which the application filed by the landlord under section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for release of the tenanted shop was allowed. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 25th November, 2009 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner for setting aside the aforesaid order was dismissed. The application under section 21(1)(a) of the Act was filed by the landlord who was an advocate for establishing a Chamber for his son who was also practicing as an Advocate since 1990 and for the Garage for keeping his Car. It was stated that on the ground floor there were two rooms out of which one was being utilized for keeping the books while the other room had been let out to the petitioner. It was also stated that there was a telephone pole in front of the room where the books were kept and the tenanted portion was needed so that one room could be utilized as a Garage and the other could be utilized for the Chamber for his son. The Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority has found as a fact that the need of the landlord was bona fide as the son who was practicing since 1990 needed a separate Chamber for himself.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact the vacant shop had let out to another tenant who was running a public booth.

(3.) This submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The Commissioner in his report has mentioned that in the said shop the laws books were kept. The Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, on a perusal of the material available on records, have recorded a categorical finding of fact that this room which the tenant alleges was let out to PCO was actually being used by the father and the son for their library and for keeping their files. Nothing has been pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioner which may indicate that the said finding is perverse. This petition was earlier dismissed in default and before it could be restored, possession of the tenanted shop was taken by the landlord. There is no good reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The landlord shall, however, comply with the directions issued by the Prescribed Authority for payment of the amount, if it has not already been paid.