SHIV MANGAL SINGH RATHORE Vs. RAM JEEVAN RATHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 20.2.1997 passed by the trial court as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

(3.) It appears that the opposite party is the landlord of the disputed shop in which the petitioner is the tenant. The opposite party moved an application under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act') for release of the disputed shop. It was alleged by the opposite parties that he purchased the land in the year 1960 and constructed his house and two shops. Out of two shops one shop was let out to the petitioner at the rent of Rs. 40 per month and another shop was let out to another tenant at the rent of Rs. 150 per month. The petitioner also purchased the land in Mohalla Saraln Subedar, Safipur, Unnao, in the year 1976. The petitioner constructed his house along with two shops facing towards road. In one of the two shops the petitioner started a workshop of Plastic goods and another shop is in possession of the petitioner in vacant position. The opposite party required the disputed shop for his own need for keeping flour and oil mill. It was also alleged that the petitioner had taken this shop for his medical profession in which he could not get success. The petitioner is not M.B.B.S. doctor but he is having B.A.M.S. degree. The defence of the petitioner before the prescribed authority was that the plaintiff has already one shop other than the disputed shop in his possession which he keeps locked and he can carry on business of floor and oil mill in that shop. It has also contended that another shop is always found locked. A commission was issued and the disputed shop was found locked. The prescribed authority recorded a finding of fact that the learned counsel for the opposite party landlord has admitted that another shop indicated by the petitioner was not sufficient to fulfil the need of the landlord and the disputed shop is the only shop which can fulfil his requirement. The prescribed authority also recorded a finding that the opposite party was carrying on a business of floor and oil mill in the back of the disputed shop and he required an additional space for extending his business. Therefore, his need was bona fide and genuine for vacation of the disputed shop. The prescribed authority has already recorded a finding that at the time of recording spot inspection by the Commissioner, the lock of the another shop of the landlord was opened by one person Ram Singh. The prescribed authority has also pointed out the admission of the petitioner that he had purchased the property and constructed the house and two shops but the construction of the shop was not complete upto the date of the filing of the objection by the petitioner before the prescribed authority. The petitioner contended before the prescribed authority that he had settled his medical practice in the disputed shop and he had earned a goodwill for the last 20 years, so he will suffer a greater hardship if, this disputed shop is released in favour of the landlord. Thus, it was an admitted fact that the petitioner was having accommodation of alternative shop in his own building and the plea of earning goodwill of the medical profession from the disputed shop, was turned down by the prescribed authority.