DURGA PRASAD JAIN Vs. SRI KISHAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the landlord for quashing the judgment -dated 14.12.2000 passed by 2nd Addl. District Judge, Bulandshahr in Rent Control Appeal No. 30 of 1999 Sri Kishan v. Durga Prasad whereby the appeal has been allowed, the judgment of the prescribed authority, dated 30.11.1999 passed in Rent Control Case No. 10/99 allowing the release application of the petitioner was set aside and the application of the petitioner for release under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been rejected. The petitioner is the landlord of four shops situate, in Mohalla Sarabgiwara, Qasba and Pargana Sikanderabad District Bulandshahr. One of the shops is in the tenancy of the respondent No. 1 from where he initially used to carry on the business of repairs of Radio and Transistors. It was alleged in the release application that the petitioner was carrying on joint business of wholesale medicines with one of his son Pushp Kumar from a shop adjoining to the shop in dispute. The other son of the petitioner Jitendra Kumar has separate living and carries on separate business of the Transport from different premises. It is further alleged that in 1995 wife of the petitioner died. In 1997 Nazar Mohammad another tenant of the petitioner exchanged his shop which was adjoining to the shop from which the business of wholesale medicines was carried on with Pushp Kumar. That thereafter the premises of wholesale medicine was set up in two shops by making it into one shop. Later on Pushp Kumar and his wife started ill -treating the petitioner and the petitioner was ousted from the business of wholesale medicines. The petitioner wanted to have his independent and own source of income and also to keep himself engaged, filed release application for eviction of the respondent No. 1 so that he could set up his own business of general merchandise in the shop in dispute. This case was registered as Rent Control Case No. 10 of 1999.

(2.) THE release application was contested by the tenant respondent with the allegation that the same is mala fide and only in order to increase the rent, the said application was filed. The landlord has no bona fide need. In case the respondent is evicted he would suffer greater hardship. During the pendency of the case before the prescribed authority, the landlord suggested several vacant shops of individual owners as well as owned by the municipality where the tenant could shift his business. Even affidavit was filed of the owners of the shop offering the tenant to take their shops on rent from where he would carry on his business. The tenant declined all such offers and continued to contest the release application.

(3.) THE writ petition is of the year 2001. Notices were issued to the respondent No. 1 in the said writ petition vide order dated 28.2.2001. Thereafter vakalatnama of Sri Harsh Narain Sharma Advocate was filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 on 16.4.2001. No counter affidavit has been filed till today. Time was also granted by order of this Court dated 1.10.2004. Today the case has been taken up in the revised list, neither Sri H.N. Sharma Counsel for the respondent No. 1 is present in Court nor any request has been made on his behalf. In the circumstances, the case is being heard ex -parte.