SMT. SHASHI GUPTA Vs. KISHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.N. Bhargava, learned Counsel for petitioner, who has argued the matter at great length but without pointing out any apparent error in the impugned appellate order despite repeated query. From the facts as borne out from record, it appears that petitioner filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") before Prescribed Authority registered as P.A. Case No. 2 of 2005 seeking release of shop in question which was under the tenancy of respondent on the ground that shop is required by petitioner for her son Munish Kumar who intends to commence his business therein since he is unemployed and has passed High School and has also obtained diploma in Poultry Science. He is married and, therefore, he has to maintain his own family.

(2.) Trial Court allowed the application by order dated 7.7.2011 but in appeal filed by respondent-tenant the Trial Court's order has been reversed. The Appellate Court has found that petitioner's father was in Government service in State of Rajasthan being a Veterinary Medical Officer and retired from service cm 31.10.1999. Petitioner possess a lot of property in which a Banquet Hall/Marriage Home is being run, there is a land in which cattle fair is organized and there are several other shops.

(3.) The tenant pleaded that Banquet Hall/Marriage Home and cattle fairs are looked after by petitioner's son Munish Kumar. Petitioner disputed the same but admittedly except of bare averments, could not adduce any evidence to show that Banquet Hall/Marriage Home and the cattle fairs were being organized and managed by her husband. On the contrary, respondent-tenant also adduced a photograph showing petitioner's son Munish Kumar working in a cattle fair making entries of the sale transactions by issuing sale certificates etc. It is true that by itself engagement in a cattle fair may not be said to be an appropriate engagement in business on permanent basis but the fact also remains that there were two shops in which a flour mill was started by petitioner's son who crossed the mill due to substantial loss and instead providing the said shops to petitioner's son Munish Kumar, for whose benefit the shop in question was required, the said two shops were included in Banquet Hall/Marriage Home for its purpose though it is not the case of petitioner that there was no sufficient space already available in the Banquet Hall/Marriage Home to provide store etc. therein.