ROHIT DIXIT Vs. GYANENDRA KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant has filed this petition for setting aside the judgment and order dated 15th December, 2011 by which the Appeal filed by the landlord under Section 22 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for setting aside the order dated 18th August, 2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the application filed by the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act for release of the tenanted shop has been allowed.

(2.) IN the application filed by the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, it was stated that the tenant was occupying one shop situate on the ground floor in premises no. 76/579, Coolie Bazar, Kanpur Nagar of which the applicant was the landlord. It was stated that the first, second and third floor of the premises in question were residential where the applicant's family and brothers with their family were residing. The tenant was occupying a shop on the ground floor. The applicant was doing business of selling/purchasing of properties and his son was doing business of hardware on the road by putting a wooden Takhat and the second son had left studies and wanted to start his own business. It was, therefore, stated that the landlord bona fide required the shop in question for doing his own business as well as for establishing his two sons in business. It was also stated that the landlord was likely to suffer greater hardship than the tenant.

(3.) WITH respect to the first point, the Prescribed Authority held that the relationship between the landlord and tenant existed. However, with regard to the second point, the Prescribed Authority found that the landlord did not bona fide require the shop in dispute since he had not indicated the space available with him and nor had he filed any document in connection with his business or the business of his son Amit Jain. The third point was not considered necessary to be decided since it had been found that the landlord did not bona fide require the tenanted shop.