DINESH KUMAR Vs. IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.9.1982 passed by the prescribed authority as well as the appellate order dated 1.5.1984 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr whereby, the petitioner's application under Section 21(1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was rejected.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the writ petition are hat the petitioner is the owner and landlord of the shop in question and respondent No. 3 is the tenant in question and is doing the business under the name and style of 'Gandhi Ashram'. The petitioner moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of the shop in question on the ground that the shop was required for his son. The petitioner alleged that his son Dinesh Kumar was 25 years old and had passed his Intermediate Examination and had obtained training of Radio Electricity and Motor Winding and wanted to start his own business, but has no place to set up his business and therefore, required the shop in question to enable his son to start his business. The petitioner further contended that he had no other accommodation available with him. The petitioner further contended that he has two other sons who are doing independent business. The petitioner contended that on account of not doing any business and being unemployed the petitioner was finding it difficult to get his son married off. The petitioner prayed that the need for his son was bona fide and genuine and prayed that the shop may be released. The petitioner further alleged that there are several other shops available where the tenant could easily shift his business and therefore, the tenant would not suffer any irreparable loss.

(3.) The respondent No. 3 contested the matter and contended that the petitioner was carrying on the business of Iron and cloth and that his son could also be engaged in the said business. The tenant further contended that the petitioner had two other shops, which could be released. The tenant further contended that the application was mala fide and the same had been filed only to enhance the rent. The tenant also stated that the petitioner's son was residing in Aligarh where he was carrying on his business and therefore, there was no bona fide need of the petitioner. The tenant further contended that over the period of time, the tenant had earned a good will and therefor, the shop should not be released.