DHARAMVIR KASHYAP Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the peti tioners pray that an order dated 12th of February. 1971. passed by the State Gov ernment under Section 7-F of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. 1947 be quashed.

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 Dharamvir Kashyap is the son of one Sheer Singh Kashyap. Petitioner No. 3 Udain Kashyap is the son of Petitioner No. 1 and grandson of Sheer Singh Kashyap, Sheer Singh and Tara Chand (Petitioner No. 2) were the tenants in premises Nos. 31 and 30 of Mohalla Gudaryan, Shamli Road. MuzafEarnagar. Accommo-i dation in premises No. 31 consists of a shop facing south on the ground floor whereas that in premises No. 30 con sists of a room, courtyard and a stair case on the first floor. Respondent No. 4 Sumat Prasad is the landlord of the two accommodations. He moved an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Muzaffarnagar seeking permission to file suits for ejectment of Sheer Singh Kashyap and Tara Chand. The permission was sought mainly on the ground that the applicant's income had been dwindling because of abolition of 'Zamindari' and discontinuation of his practice as an advocate since the year 1957 when he was returned to Lok Sabha. His expenditure increased sud denly when his only daughter lost her husband on the 16th July. 1968 and the burden of supporting her and her five minor daughters fell upon the applicant. In these circumstances it became neces sary for the applicant to augment his income so that he may be able to main tain himself, his daughter and his grand children. Accordingly he entered into a partnership with one Sri Kailash Chand Jain for running wholesale cloth busi ness in the disputed premises. The ac commodation on the ground floor was to be used as a shop whereas that on the first floor was to be used as a godown. It was alleged that petitioner No. 2 Tara Chand had con structed a house and some shops at Bhopa Road. Muzaffarnagar and he could easily shift his business to that place.

(3.) AFTER considering the cases of both parties. Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Muzaffarnagar came to the conelusion that the case set out by the landlord is correct and that he genuinely needed the two accommodations for run ning a .partnership business. He also found that in case the two tenants were directed to be ejected, their interests would undoubtedly suffer; but consider ing the respective needs of both the par ties, this was case where interest of the two tenants could be sacrificed in the interest of the landlord. Accordingly he permitted the landlord to file a suit for ejectment of Sheer Singh and Tara Chand.