RAM SWAROOP Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by petitioner-tenant against the order passed by the District Judge, Etah, dated 2.2.1983 allowing the appeal filed by respondent-landlord Mahesh Chandra Jain against the order of the Prescribed Authority rejecting his application for release of the shop in dispute under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

(2.) THE brief facts for the purposes of deciding the present writ petition are that the original landlord Shrimati Bitola Bai filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act for getting the shop in dispute released on the ground that his son, the present petitioner, is carrying on the business of selling medicines in retail and with a view to augment his income, which he required for marrying his two marriageable daughters and for maintaining his family, he wanted to carry on wholesale medicine business. During the pendency of the application Smt. Bitola Bai died and Mahesh Chandra Jain continued the application filed by Shrimati Bitola Bai. The petitioner-tenant contested the application on the ground that he was carrying on his business in the shop in dispute for the last about 50 years and also that the landlord did not require the shop in dispute as he was having sufficient income from the business which he was already carrying on and also from other sources. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application under Section 21 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved the landlord Mahesh Chandra Jain preferred an appeal which has been allowed under the impugned order by the District Judge, Etah. Under the impugned order it has been held that the landlord has successfully proved that his need for the shop in bonafide and genuine. On the question of comparative hardship it has been held that the tenant can carry on his business in another shop No. 698 situated at a short distance from the shop in dispute which is in the tenancy of the wife of the petitioner-tenant.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the respondent has, however, urged that the averments and the evidence which had been filed by the landlord-respondent was sufficient to record a finding on the question of bonafide requirement in his favour. It has been urged that it was not necessary for the landlord to have given exact details of his income and the fact that the landlord had a licence of selling wholesale medicines in his favour was sufficient to prove that he wanted to start the wholesale business. Reliance has also been placed on two decisions of this court reported in L. Chiman Lal v. M/s. Banwari Lal and another, 1959 AWR 70 and Brij Nandan Saran v. The Additional District Judge, 1978 ARC 236 for the proposition that in case it is established that the landlord required the accommodation bonafide for the purposes of establishing a business, the same was sufficient for allowing the release application under Section 21 of the Act.