PHARMA TRADERS Vs. SEVENTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition of the tenant arises out of the proceedings initiated in the year 1985, under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') by the landlady, Respondent No. 3, seeking release of the accomodation in dispute, under the tenancy of the Petitioner, being utilised for non-residential purpose.

(2.) The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case are that the application for release indicated above was filed asserting that Sanjay Kumar, the third son of the landlady wanted to start his own business of sweat-meat of which alone he bad some experience and to augment his income so as to comfortably maintain himself, his wife, his family members and expected issues. It was alleged that a sweat meat shop specially a new one could be run successfully in the shop in dispute on the ground floor abutting on the main road and that except that accommodation, the landlady had no other accommodation available at her disposal, where Sanjay Kumar may establish himself in business. It was asserted that the accommodation in dispute was suitable for his proposed business. It was further asserted that the need for the release of the shop was genuine, bonafide and pressing one. It was also asserted that the tenant had in his occupation sufficient space, where he could easily shift. In the circumstances, therefore, it was alleged that the landlady would suffer greater hardship in the event of the rejection of the application as compared to the hardship likely to be suffered by the tenant, in case the application was allowed.

(3.) The tenant Petitioner contested the aforesaid application on various grounds ; denying the allegations made in the application for the release. It was asserted that the alleged need set up by the landlady was imaginary and in fact Sanjay Kumar was already engaged in business and there was no genuine requirement for his being established in his own independent business as alleged. The tenant also asserted that he will suffer tremendous loss in case; he is evicted from the premises in dispute and will suffer greater hardship as compared to the landlady in the event of the grant of the application,