ISWAR DAYAL TANDON Vs. VINOD KUMAR TEWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition arising from proceedings for eviction from the shop in question under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972). The petitioner has lost before both the authorities below. The order of the Prescribed Authority is dated 1.5.1989 and of the IInd Additional District Judge, Gonda is dated 22nd May, 1990.

(2.) THE landlord opposite party claimed release of the shop in question on the ground that he had completed his education and had set up a Nursery School in a portion of the building of which the shop is a part. The Nursery School was growing up and additional accommodation was required. This was the need set up in the application. Later, through amendment it was asserted that he had been enrolled as an Advocate in the year 1987 and the shop in question was required for his chamber also. In respect of the tenant petitioner it was stated that he would not suffer any injury as he had taken the accommodation in question on rent for his fair price shop which he had later shifted to another place. It was further asserted that in the shop in question the petitioner had started doing business in fertilizer, pesticide and seeds and in 1987 he had made construction on the land purchased by him in the name of his wife in which the fertilizer, pesticide and seed business was being carried on under the name and style "Bharat Beej Bhandar".

(3.) DURING the pendency of the proceedings some additional accommodation became available to the landlord-opposite party, on account of which it was pleaded by the petitioner that the need of the opposite party if there was one stood satisfied. The Prescribed Authority and Additional District Judge through positive finding of fact accepted the opposite party's plea that he was running a Nursery School. This finding is one of fact and could not be shown to suffer from any legal infirmity. In respect of the legal practice the Prescribed Authority observed that the opposite party had enough accommodation at his disposal. For recording this finding the Prescribed Authority took into consideration the accommodation which became available to the landlord opposite party during the pendency of the proceedings and in respect of which Commissioner's report was on record.