RABHUBAR DAYAL 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 that 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 prescribed authority dismissed the release application holding that if the application was allowed and respondent No. 3 was evicted it would shatter the dream of Mahatma Gandhi who started this novel scheme. The prescribed authority held that if the tenant was evicted, the business of Gandhi Ashram would come to an end in the town of Anoopshahr and its employees would become unemployed. The prescribed authority, on these reasonings, held, that the eviction of respondent No. 3 could not be justified. The prescribed authority further held, that the son of the petitioner could easily be absorbed in the petitioner's business.