BHAGWANDAS SHARMA Vs. KSHITIJKANT KESARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the petition by the tenants of the shop in dispute situated in a building no. 246 against the order dated 27.4.2013 passed by the District Judge, Chandauli whereby Rent Appeal No. 8 of 2004 filed by the landlords has been allowed and the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 18.3.2004 has been set aside. The release application filed by the landlords has been allowed and the petitioners have been directed to vacate the premises, which is in the nature of shop.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that;

(3.) Late Kashi Nath Kesari-landlord filed the release application under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act on 11.3.2002 on the ground that he is now aged about 55 years old and has no permanent business and is only supporting his brother in his business and whatever the money is being received from his brother is the only source of income. He had three adult sons, namely, Sri Kshitijkant Kesari, Sri Akhilesh Kant Kesari and Sri Chandramouli Kesari. Sri Kshitijkant Kesari was 28 years old and has passed B.A. and could not marry in the absence of any permanent business. Sri Akhilesh Kant Kesari was 25 years old unmarried and wants to do business and third Sri Chandramouli Kesari was 22 years old and has passed B.A. and wants to do the business. It is stated that he had purchased the house with a view, that on the ground floor he himself and sons would carry on the business and on the first floor he would live after construction of rooms. It is further stated that on the mercy of his brother Sri Krishna Kant Kesari, he was residing in one room and living life of hell. The future of his sons is in dark in the absence of any opportunity to carry on the business and after the shop is being vacated, he would construct the shops and settle his sons. It is also stated that the tenants are running a Bhojnalaya in the premises in dispute in the name of Marwari Bhojnalaya and the tenants also possessed house no. 252 in which they are running a Bangle Cosmetic shop and running Beauty Parlour, which is near the premises in dispute and from that place they can carry on the business. To the contrary the petitioners have no other property and shop. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 18.3.2004 rejected the release application.