KANPUR AGRA TRANSPORT COMPANY Vs. AMAR JEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the tenant for the quashing of the judgment dated 1.9.1986 passed by the prescribed authority under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the Appellate order and judgment dated 15.7.1987 passed by 8th Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, allowing the release application of the landlord, respondent No. 1 under Section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) Respondent No. 1 in his application under Section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act, stated that he became the owner and landlord of the premises No. 79/7, Latouche Road, Kanpur, vide a registered sale deed dated 20.8.1977. Respondent No. 1 contended that he had purchased the said premises for his residential and business purposes on the assurance given by the petitioners that they will vacate the premises in question, as they had shifted their entire transport business to the Transport Nagar and did not require the premises in question for their business purposes. On this assurance the petitioner had purchased the property but thereafter, the petitioners did not vacate the premises in question. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 filed the application for release of the premises in question, after the expiry of the stipulated period contained in the first proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Act.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 contended that he was living with his parents and brothers in a very small accommodation, which consisted of two rooms in the first floor and one room on the second floor. His brothers were already married and that the respondent No. 1 had also got married recently and therefore required more space and privacy. The accommodation in question was insufficient and that the relationship with his brothers were becoming strained. Respondent No. 1 also contended that he was working as a Manager in M/s. Chawala Sewing Machine, which was owned by his brothers and mother and that the respondent No. 1 wanted to carry on the sewing machine business and other allied business independently and for this purpose required the ground floor and that the first floor would be used for residential purposes after reconstructing the premises in question. Respondent No. 1 alleged that he has the requisite finance to reconstruct the premises and had further got the plan sanctioned from the relevant authorities.