SHIV PRAKASH Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and perused the record. This is landlord's petition. He filed Release Application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") registered as P.A. Case No. 8 of 1993 before the Court below for release of accommodation in question, which is a shop but the same was rejected by Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 7.5.1999 holding that his need was not genuine and the said judgment has been confirmed by Appellate Court by dismissing petitioner's Misc. Appeal No. 167 of 1999 vide judgment and order dated 2.9.2006. The case set up by petitioner was that he has two sons aged about 25 years and 23 years. Both are unemployed. Elder Aditya Narain is married and still unemployed while younger Amit Kumar though unmarried but he is also unemployed and want to engage in some business having completed his education upto graduation. The Application was contested by respondent-tenants alleging that the landlord is inhabit of getting shops vacated on false grounds and, thereafter let out on higher rents. After the shop in dispute was let out to the initial tenant Sri Sardar Singh, father of present tenants-respondents, who has been substituted after his death, another shop of petitioner-landlord was taken on rent at Rs. 250/- per month but on a request made by landlord that he need that shop for his personal need, it was vacated by Late Sardar Singh. Landlord thereafter let out the said shop to Dr. Smt. Pooman Kaushik on higher rent. Subsequently, against Smt. Poonam Kaushik also P.A. Case No. 120 of 1992 was instituted and therein the shop was released. After getting possession, landlord again let out the said shop on a much higher rent to M/s. Meena Jewelers and Bankers. The landlord besides shop in question and the second shop which has been let out to M/s. Meena Jewelers and Bankers, has more than nine shops and one Ice factory. Eight out of nine shops of the landlord are under tenancy but one is vacant and in the possession of landlord. Similarly several other allegations were made in defence by the tenants.

(2.) Prescribed Authority found that both the sons of Landlord are already employed. The elder son Aditya Kumar had 1800 shares in M/s. Hindustan Compressor Limited and is Honorary Director of the said company. The younger one Amit Kumar was already engaged in readymade garments business. He found the assertion made by tenant correct about the second shop which was let out to one Poonam Kaushik and thereafter to M/s. Meena Jewelers and Bankers. He also found that one shop, which was in the tenancy of one Rajdhani Medical Store was vacated on 30.3.1995, which could have been availed by landlord for settling his sons since the said shop was vacated during the pendency of the present Release Application. It is in these circumstances, Trial Court held that the need of landlord was not genuine. Once a need was not found genuine, no other question has much importance. The aforesaid findings have been confirmed by Appellate Court also. Appellate Court in its judgment dated 2.9.2006 has clearly held:

(3.) Counsel for petitioner, however, has raised a new argument before this Court that tenant Sardar Singh died on 11.12.1994. His two sons were already employed or engaged elsewhere inasmuch the elder son was a Government servant and younger was an advocate. In these circumstances, the shop in question is now being run by his grandson who cannot claim to have succeeded tenancy rights from his grandfather since such rights would devolve upon the sons and not the grandson.