MOHD SABIR HUSSAIN Vs. HAZI ABDUL HAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent no. I, who has filed caveat. The landlord (respondent No. 1) had moved an application for release of the accommodation in dispute which is a shop in the tenancy of the petitioners on the ground that he required it for establishing his grown-up sons in business. The aforesaid release application was contested by the petitioners mainly on the ground that their need was more genuine, bonafide and pressing than the need of the landlord, that they had been in possession of the shop in dispute since long and that they would suffer huge financial loss if they were evicted from it. Both the courts below found that the need of the landlord was genuine, bona fide and more pressing. The prescribed authority, therefore, allowed the release application. Feeling aggrieved, the tenants preferred rent appeal No. 1342/90 which was heard and dismissed by the VlHth Addl. District Judge, Kanpur on 22-11- 1993. The tenants, feeling aggrieved, instituted this writ petition in this court: against the aforesaid order passed in the rent appeal.

(2.) WHILE considering the comparative need of the parties, the court below observed that during the pendency of these release proceedings, petitioners had got released their two shops occupied by their tenants but instead of occupying the same, they got them allotted to different persons as tenants thereof which showed that their contention of genuine and bonafide need was not correct. Both the courts below also found that sometime prior to the commencement of this litigation, the petitioners has got released one more shop which belonged to them of which they had obtained possession also but instead of carrying on business! in it, they had left it lying vacant as a result of which it had become dilapidated. The appellate court, further observed that the petitioners, after the release of the aforesaid three shops, could have started business therein which, however, for no good reasons was not done and therefore, their contention that their need was more pressing than the need of the landlord could not be accepted.

(3.) ON the basis of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the courts below had rightly allowed the release application. No interference was permissible in this writ petition which, therefore, was liable to be dismissed summarily. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, prayed that the pensioners had very old business in the shop in dispute and, therefore, some more time may be granted to them to vacate it if the present writ petition was to be dismissed at this stage. The request appears to be reasonable and I propose to give them six months from today to vacate it.