CHANDRA BHAN Vs. VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE release application of the landlady Respondent No. 2 under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was rejected by an order dated 11.12.1986 by the Prescribed Authority. The landlady required the disputed shop to settle her husband in business as he was sitting idle. Initially, in the release application it was not indicated as to what nature of business the husband of the landlady wants to establish and as to whether he is duly qualified and possessed of necessary expertise for the same. It was later on Sri Jitendra Kumar in his affidavit alleged that the disputed shop is needed to establish a show room for the agency of Fo. sroc Technology Limited, Birmingham, in Agra district Sri Jitendra Kumar was initially doing business of Tobacco in the firm Varshney Tambaku Bhandar, which was closed on 6.3.1979 and since then he is sitting idle. Sri Jitender Kumar was also engaged in the business of Oil Expeller, which has also been stopped and this fact is fully established as the electric connection has also been disconnected. The husband of the landlady was also alleged to be having rental income of Rs. 28,000/- per year.

(2.) ON the other hand the tenant had set up a case that he is carrying on the business of tea stall for more than thirteen years and his shop is open round the clock being in the vicinity of four Cinema halls and is situate on the road to Railway Station, which is at a short distance. The tea shop caters the need of the passengers, rickshaw-pullers as well as the workers in the neighbouring factories. The tenant indicated large number of family members who are dependent on the income from the shop. The husband of the landlady Sri Jitender Kumar is jointly living as a member of Hindu Undivided Family along with his father. The father of Sri Jitendra Kumar owns a large number of immovable properties and he carries on Tobacco business on a large scale. Apart from this he is also registered under the Sales Tax Act for Oil Expeller business and is also doing money lending business. It has also been alleged that besides the disputed shop the landlady also possessed another shop adjacent to the disputed shop and vacant house behind these two shops at Mohalla Katra Sonaran. Apart from this landlady and her family possessed mult-storeyed residential houses.

(3.) AS regards the Oil Expeller business the learned Prescribed Authority was of the opinion that the Oil Expeller business was closed with effect from 8.3.1983, whereas the release application was filed on 13.7.1981. The Prescribed Authority has further held that he was doing business of money lending. The husband of the landlady Sri Jitendra Kumar, under these circumstances was not held to be sitting idle. It was further held that Sri Jitendra Kumar is living jointly with his father, who possessed large number of properties and the family being joint he is entitled to get the properties for his use which are owned by his father. The property purchased in the name of Smt. Vimla Devi, the mother of Sri Jitendra Kumar on 20.12.1982 can also be utilised by Sri Jitendra Kumar. Apart from all these accommodations the premises in which Oil Expeller business was being conducted, the same can also be utilised for establishing the business. It has also been admitted by Sri Jitendra Kumar that behind the disputed shop there is godown and residential accommodation available in possession of the landlady. On the basis of the aforesaid material it has been held by the Prescribed Authority that the need of the landlady to establish her husband in the disputed shop is not bonafide and genuine. As the need was not found to be bonafide and genuine, the need of landlady and tenant was not compared.