RAM KUMAR Vs. IVTH A D J KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE etitioner is the landlord of the shop in question and has assailed the order of the revisional court rejecting the release application. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of the premises in question which is under the tenancy of respondent No. 2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of the shop for one of his sons, namely, Ajai Kumar. The petitioner contended that his son Ajai Kumar had started a business in the manufacture of soap but he needs an outlet to sell his product and do business on a better scale and, therefore, requires the shop in question. The petitioner further alleged that the defendant was not carrying on any business from the premises in question and that he keeps the disputed shop locked most of the time and that he was doing his business from his residential house No. 2/140 Nawabganj, Kanpur.

(2.) THE defendant contested the matter and submitted that he was carrying the business of cycle repairing etc. from the premises in question and denied that he was carrying on any business from his residential house. The tenant further contended that the landlord had several other houses and open plots in his possession which he could utilize in order to set up the business of his son. The defendant contended that the application of the petitioner was not bonafide and that it was mala fide and was liable to be rejected.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and order of the prescribed authority, the tenant filed an appeal which was allowed and the order of the prescribed authority was set aside and the release application of the petitioner was rejected. The appellate court held that the release application of the petitioner was neither bona jide nor genuine inasmuch as there was no requirement of the shop to set up the business of his son inasmuch as the son was already doing business and that the petitioner's case was not that his son had no place for doing his business. The appellate court further found that since the landlord had other properties he could make alternate arrangements for his son. The appellate court further found that the tenant was not carrying on any business from his residential portion.