ROSHAN LAL Vs. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PREMISES No. 118/230, 80 Ft. Road, Kaushalpuri, Kanpur belonged to Dr. Purshottam Singh, respondent No. 3. The ground floor had several portions. One of them was in the use and occupation of Dr. Purshottam Singh, respondent No. 3, wherein he was running his clinic. Another portion of the ground floor had been released in favour of Dr. Manjeet Kaur, wife of Dr. Didar Singh, the son of respondent No. 3. The third portion had been let out to a firm M/s. Sardar Finance Corporation where as the fourth portion was a room measuring 18 ft. X 18 ft. let out to the petitioner for a tea shop. In October, 1978, respondent No. 3 applied for release of the room in occupation of the petitioner on the ground of personal requirement of his son, Dr. Didar Singh. Dr. Didar Singh passed his M.B.B.S. in the year 1972 and since then he was practising as medical practitioner at Kanpur respondent No. 3 alleged that Dr. Didar Singh had taken on rent a shop in Mohalla Rawatpur but this ship was situated in the locality that did not suit him. As Dr. Didar Singh wanted to establish his clinic in the premises in which respondent No. 3 was practising, the application under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed for release of the shop let out to the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 alleged that the tenanted portion in occupation of the petitioner was required for being used as a consulting room clinic by Dr. Didar Singh to make him independnet. It was alleged in the application that if the father son and daughter-in-law had their clinic independently in one building, they would consult each other as and when necessity arose in their medical profession. Respondent No. 3 had alleged that in 1976, the petitioner had been given a notice requiring the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute for the above purpose. But the living in the disputed premises.

(2.) THE application was contested by the petitioner and the landlord's version in regard to his bonafide need and his requirement were denied. The petitioner asserted that he had a large family of about ten persons and that the income earned from the business run in the premises was the only source of livelihood for him. It was asserted that the alternative accommodations stated in the application under Section 21 by respondent No. 3 were not vacant and were not available to him. The petitioner asserted that Dr. Didar Singh was having joint practice with respondent No. 3 and he did not require the shop in possession of the petitioner for the purpose disclosed in the application.

(3.) SO far as the need of respondent No. 3 was concerned, it has been pointed out above that the same was opening a clinic/consulting room by Dr. Didar Singh, son of respondent No. 3. It has been admitted by respondent No. 3 himself that Dr. Didar Singh had been practising since 1977 with respondent No. 3 and that he had a clinic of his own in Mohalla Rawatpur.