DWARIKA PRASAD GUPTA Vs. SRI KARUNA SHANKAR TEWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant petition arising out of release eviction proceedings initiated by landlord Shri Karuna Shanker Tewari since deceased and represented by the respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/6 on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Rent Control Act (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972). The release application was registered on the file of Prescribed Authority/J.S.C.C., Kanpur Nagar in the form of release Case No. 38/92. The matter was transferred for disposal to A.C.M.M. VIII/Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar. The Prescribed Authority through judgment and order dated 25.4.2003 allowed the release application with the condition that the landlords shall pay Rs. 12000/- as damages to the tenant. Against the said judgment and order appeal was filed by the tenant being Rent Appeal No. 44/03. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar through judgment and order dated 30.10.2003 dismissed the appeal. Hence this writ petition.

(2.) The accommodation in dispute is a shop. The problem with both the landlords as well as the tenant is that both of them are quite rich and have got alternative accommodation at their disposal. In the release application as initially filed by the landlord Karuna Shanker Tewari (K.S. Tewari in short) (since deceased) It was stated that shop in dispute was in dilapidated condition and landlord required the same for setting his two sons Sanjai Tewari and Shishir Tewari in Hotel and Restaurant business for which accommodation in dispute was quite suitable. The shop in dispute is situated in premises No. 17/14 the Mall, Kanpur. In the release application it was mentioned that family of the landlord constituted of himself, his wife and aforesaid two sons. It was also pleaded that the tenant was himself owner and landlord of an adjacent house bearing Municipal No. 17/12 the Mall, Kanpur where he had vacant accommodation at his disposal in which he could very conveniently shift his business. Landlord K.S. Tewari filed an affidavit on 6.2.1995 in Para 34 of which (quoted in Para 8 of writ petition) he offered alternative accommodation of about 400 sq. feet to the tenant in the same premises i.e. 17/14. In the said paragraph it was also stated that accommodation No. 17/12 owned by the tenant was partly in his possession and partly in possession of another tenant which tenant could get released and till then landlord was ready to offer alternative accommodation adjacent to the shop in dispute and situate in same premises bearing No. 17/14. During pendency of the release application tenant through an affidavit brought on record of fact that landlord during pendency of the case had constructed big spacious basement ground floor and first floor in accommodation No. 17/14 and had let out the same to Bank of Baroda and D.H.L. The landlord thereafter on 29.2.1996 filed application seeking amendment in the release application. Through the amendment application it was pleaded that meanwhile landlord K.S. Tewari had been enrolled as an Advocate and his daughter Smt. Manisha Misra was also practicing as an Advocate and both father and daughter intended to establish their office for the purpose of profession of advocacy in the accommodation in dispute.

(3.) Sri K.S. Tewari original landlord died on 27.6.1998 All the heirs of late K.S. Tewari got themselves substituted even though it was stated by them that K.S. Tewari had executed a Will in favour of his daughter Smt. Manisha Misra. In the said application (copy of which is Annexure 11 to the writ petition) It was stated that Smt. Manisha Misra who was practicing as Advocate since 1994 intended to establish her office for carrying profession of advocacy in accommodation in dispute. That application was a combined application seeking substitution as well as amendment in release application. At the end of Para 8 of the release application the following was sought to be substituted.