SHIV SEWAK KASHYAP Vs. VEERENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Prakhar Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shreya Gupta along with Sri Deepak Singh, learned counsels for the contesting plaintiff-respondents.

(2.) The writ petition at the instance of the tenant petitioner has been filed assailing the judgment and order dtd. 18/10/2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 19, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 80 of 2022 (Virendra Singh (since deceased) and others vs. Shiv Sewak Kashyap) whereby and whereunder the Rent Appeal has been allowed and the judgment and order dtd. 1/7/2022 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Kanpur Nagar in Rent Case No. 02 of 2014 rejecting the release application under Sec. 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been set aside and the release application has been allowed, the petitioner has been directed to handover the actual physical vacant possession of the shop in dispute to the respondent landlords. The respondent landlords in turn have been directed to compensate the petitioner with a sum equivalent to two years rent.

(3.) The admitted facts shorn of unnecessary details essential for deciding the controversy between the parties is that the petitioner is a tenant in a shop number 33-A situate on the ground floor of a building no. 33 Lakhanpur, Kanpur Nagar at monthly rent of Rs.400.00. A release application under Sec. 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by one Virendra Singh the predecessor in interest of the respondent no. 1/1 to 1/3 herein setting up a bona fide need for the shop under the tenancy of the petitioner. In the release application, it was averred that the original landlord of the building no. 33C on the ground floor of which the shop under the tenancy of the petitioner is situate was Smt. Kamla Devi. On the death of Smt. Kamla Devi the building devolved upon her 3 sons (respondent Virendra and his two brothers). A mutual partition took place amongst the co-owners and the applicant Virendra Singh became the owner of the portion under which the shop under the tenancy fell. It was also averred in the release application that he has superannuated from the U.P. Power Corporation, Lucknow on 30/6/2013 and wants to set up his own business in the shop under the tenancy of the petitioner. It was also stated that the rent of the shop is Rs.800.00 per month but the tenant has not paid rent since August 2013. In Para 9 of the release application, it was specifically stated that if the shop is released in his favour, the same would be utilized for carrying on business by self and would not be let out to any third party. It was further stated that the tenant petitioner is not carrying on business in the shop in question and infact is carrying on the business of his father in another shop.