KISHUN KHETAN D Vs. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/ release proceedings on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Chatur Bhuj Agarwal (C.B. Agarwal in short) filed a release application giving rise to the instant writ petition being P.A. Case No. 19 of 1990 on the file of Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Azamgarh, Sri Kishun Khetan petitioner (since deceased and survived by L.Rs.) who was the tenant was impleaded as opposite party No. 1 in the release application. Vijai Krishan Agarwal (V.K. Agarwal in short) and Gopal Krishan Agarwal (G.K. Agarwal in short) nephews of C.B. Agarwal and co-landlords were impleaded as proforma opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. V.K. Agarwal and G.K. Agarwal are sons of late Ghanshyam Agarwal (G.S. Agarwal in short) real brother of Sri C.B. Agarwal. Release application was allowed on 24.7.1991 and appeal against the same filed by the tenant being P.A. Appeal No. 141 of 1991 was also dismissed by Vth Additional District Judge, Azamgarh, on 4.4.1997, hence, this writ petition.

(2.) The tenant pleaded and tried to prove that it was only G.S. Agarwal who was the landlord and not C.B. Agarwal however, both the courts below have rightly held that both C.B. Agarwal and G.S. Agarwal were joint owners/landlords. For arriving at the said findings, reliance has been placed upon the case filed by tenant himself under Section 30 in which he showed all the three persons, i.e., C.B. Agarwal, V.K. Agarwal and G.K. Agarwal as landlord respondents and rent receipt in which the names of all the three persons were mentioned as landlord. In one of the supplementary-affidavits filed in this writ petition tenant has himself described V.K. Agarwal as one of the co-owners (supplementary-affidavit sworn in November, 1997). Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not seriously challenged the said findings.

(3.) The main argument of learned counsel for the tenant petitioner is with regard to availability of other shops to the landlord. In the release application it was stated by C.B. Agarwal that he had four sons and the shop in dispute was required for Vinay Kumar Agarwal one of his sons to start business. Both the courts below particularly the Prescribed Authority has held after taking into consideration the material on record that the shops vacated by Girdhar Das and Annapurna Devi were being used by V.K. Agarwal and G.K. Agarwal the other co-landlords. The said shops, therefore, cannot be said to be available to C.B. Agarwal.