ANAND SWAROOP GOEL Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition for issuing a writ of Certiorari to quash the judgment dated 13-11-2003 (Annexure-2) passed by the opposite party No. 1 Additional District Judge, Sitapur Court No. 10 upholding the judgment dated 22-8-98 (Annexure- 1) passed by the opposite party No. 2 Prescribed Authority under U.P. Urban Buildings Act. 1972/IInd Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sitapur.

(2.) Opposite party No. 3 Krishna Murari Mishra moved an application on 28-7-92 under Sec. 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the 'Act') for the release of the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner on the ground that the opposite party No. 3 is M.B.B.S. doctor and he requires the shop in dispute or his clinic. It was alleged that the opposite party No. 3 earlier used to do the practice in private Polyclinic at Lucknow but subsequently he has been shifted to Sitapur. The petitioner was carrying on the business of general merchandise and since his business was not running on well, he opened a P.C.O. It was alleged that the shop in occupation of the petitioner is bona fide required for the purpose of the clinic to be run by the petitioner. During the pendency of the appeal, the opposite party No. 3 filed affidavit in reply to the affidavit of the petitioner and alleged that his daughter Kumari Richa has also passed M.D. Course and she will also assist the opposite party No. 3 in his clinic in the disputed shop.

(3.) The release application was contested by the petitioner by pleading that the need of the opposite party No. 3 is neither genuine nor bona fide rather it is a mere desire to oust the petitioner from the premises which is the only source of livelihood. It was also alleged that the petitioner is carrying on his business for the last twenty four years from the disputed shop and he has earned the good-will of his business. It was also alleged that the opposite party No. 3 after the eviction of the shop intends to let out the shop to the other persons after realising the huge premium on hire rent. It is also alleged that the opposite party No. 3 is a man of means and is possessing various accommodations in vacant state but he has not opened his clinic rather let out those accommodations on rent. The accommodation in possession of the District Malaria Officer which was being used for the office as well as the lab was vacated and the possession was delivered to the opposite party No. 3 in which he could carry on his so-called clinic. The opposite party No. 3 is doing his medical practice from the premises from where his father was carrying on his clinic. It is further pleaded that on the first floor of the disputed shop as well as the adjoining shops, there is also sufficient space which is lying vacant and the same can be used by the opposite party No. 3 for the purpose of his so-called need.