RAM KUMAR Vs. IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the landlord against the judgment dated 29.7.1982 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur in Rent Appeal No. 64 of 1980, Sohan Lal v. Ram Kumar, whereby the appeal of the tenant was allowed and order of Prescribed Authority, dated 12.2.1980 was set aside and the release application of the petitioner was rejected: The dispute relates to one shop of the house No. 2/165 Nayab Ganj, Kanpur. The petitioner is the owner and landlord of the said shop and respondent No. 2 was the tenant at the rate of Rs. 12.10 p. per month. During the pendency of the writ petition the tenant has died and his heirs have been substituted. The release application was filed by the petitioner setting up the need of one shop for his son Ajai Kumar who had just started manufacturing soap and needed accommodation for the purpose of the said business. The release application was filed in April 1975 and was registered as PA Case No. 282 of 1977 Ram Kumar v. Sohan Lal. The written statement was filed by the tenant contesting the release application on the ground that the landlord has sufficient accommodation available where he could setup his son business by raising construction. The details were mentioned in para 9 of the written statement. After exchange of affidavits, the Prescribed Authority, allowed the release application vide judgment dated 12.2.1980 holding that the need of the landlord was genuine and bona fide and also need of the landlord is more pressing than the need of the tenant. Against the said judgment the tenant filed an appeal which has been allowed vide judgment dated 29.7.1982 and the release application of the petitioner was rejected. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) I have heard Sri. R.K. Mishra holding brief of Sri. Neeraj Agrawal learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S.M. Dayal, learned Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has further contended that before the appellate authority commission was issued to report regarding carrying of business of cycle by Sohan Lal from his residential accommodation. This report has been relied upon by the appellate authority. The report of the Commissioner has been filed as Annexure -7 to the petition. The report of the Commissioner stated that cycle business was not being carried on from the residential accommodation of the tenant at the house No. 2/140 Navabganj, Kanpur. It also states that the appellate Sohan Lal was carrying on business of manufacturing soap and that this is admitted to both the parties. It also mentions that there was six petro -max (gas lights) kept at the house No. 2/140 of the tenant Sohan Lal.