RAM KISHORE Vs. KAMTA PRASAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's petition arising out of proceedings Section under 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act.)

(2.) Admittedly the petitioner is the owner of the shop in dispute having purchased it in March 1970. This shop has been in the tenancy of the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 5 from the time of their great-grand father. It appears that Kamta Prasad and Subhas Chandra opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, are carrying on business of the manufactures of Ayurvedic medicines in the shop. They have no other shop in the city. On the other hand, the landlord, petitioner has three major sons, namely, Jagdish Saran; Rajendra Saran and grand-son Vinod Kumar (son of Jagdish Saran). In this manner the family of the petitioner-landlord consists of five members. Surendra Saran is carrying on the Sarafa business Rajendra Saran is dealing in electric goods. Both of them have got one shop each belonging to the petitioner. Jagdish Saran and his son, Vinod Kumar, have no place where they may carry on their business. The petitioner is himself a tenant of one shop owned by Ramesh Chandra Rastogi. It is situate across the road opposite to the shop in dispute and the petitioner is paying Rs. 7 p.m., as its rent, the petitioner, therefore, applied for release of the disputed shop on the ground that his one son and grandson bonafide and genuinely require it for doing the work of goldsmith. In the course of the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority he moved an application to the effect that he is prepared to give to the tenants the shop which is in his tenancy and which is bigger than the shop in dispute.

(3.) The opposite parties contested that application inter alia, on the grounds that the petitioner has no bonafide need for this shop; that he is already in possession of four shops of his own besides one shop which is on rent; that the tenants have no place where they may carry on their business and considerable hardship will be caused to them if they are required to vacate this shop.