MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. XVIITH A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the tenant for quashing the order dated 4.4.1995 and 24.12.1991, passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 whereby the application of the landlord respondent No. 3 for release of the premises in dispute under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been allowed and the appeal against the same has been dismissed.

(2.) The dispute relates to shop No. 16 situate in Ward No. 3 Railway Road, Kasba Agrawal Mandi Tatiry Pargana Tahsil Bagpath, district Meerut (hereinafter referred to as shop In dispute). Undisputedly the respondent No. 3 is the owner and landlord of the premises in dispute and petitioner is a tenant. The respondent No. 3 filed an application for release of the shop in dispute setting up a need that his son Jagmohan and daughter-in-law Smt. Manju (wife of Jagmohan) are unemployed and therefore, need the shop in dispute for setting up a. business of readymade garments. The case was registered as P.A. Case No. 3 of 1990, Om Prakash v. Mahendra, in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Bagpath. The release application was contested by the petitioner and in the written statement it is alleged that in fact there was no need of landlord or any of his family members, the son Jagmohan for whose requirement, the need have been set up was in fact gainfully employed as a Clerk to an Advocate in Shahadara. Further he was running a photo stat shop in Shahadara and was also doing business of manufacturing and selling washing detergent soap.

(3.) Both the parties exchanged affidavits and led evidence in support of their cases. The Prescribed Authority after considering the material on record vide judgment dated 24.12.1991, allowed the release application holding that the need of landlord for setting up his business for his son Jagmohan was bona fide and that in the event, the shop in dispute was not released, the landlord would suffer greater hardship. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 11 of 1992.