RAKESH KUMAR Vs. XIIITH A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the judgment and order dated 14.9.1982 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1 whereby he allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the prescribed authority dated 21.8.1979 and allowed the application for release of the disputed shop No. 43/213 Meston Road, Kanpur.

(2.) Admittedly, Rajendra Kumar Jain, husband of respondent No. 2 was landlord of the shop No. 43/213 situate on the ground floor of Meston Road, Kanpur and Ram Swaroop Agrawal, father of the petitioner No. 1 was the original tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 106.25 P. It. is further admitted that respondent Nos. 6 to 9 are sons of late Rajendra Kumar Jain and were the applicants in the application for release moved under Section 21(1)(a) of Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The family of the landlord consisted of several members including his wife, his four sons, three unmarried daughters and thus, he had a large family. The income of the landlord was not sufficient to meet all the requirements of the family and as such, applicants wanted to start a new business in the disputed shop with a view to provide job to Alok Kumar Jain, who was a student at the time, the application was moved. It was also alleged that no hardship would be caused to the tenant, as he owned three shops fully described in the application as well as residential premises on the Meston Road, Shisha Mau, Lajpat Nagar and Rail Bazar.

(3.) The tenant contested the application on the grounds, inter alia, that the requirement of the applicants was not genuine and application for release was moved only with a view to pressurize the tenant for enhancing the rent. It was pleaded that there was an agreement of March, 1969, between the parties that rent would not be enhanced and tenant would not be evicted provided he paid rent regularly. The tenant took the plea that applicant Nos. 2 to 4 were employed and applicant No. 5 was studying. He had no experience of doing business. The landlords wanted to evict the tenant from the disputed shop by hook or crook. The tenant pleaded that he had no concern with other shops and residences, alleged in the application and he was a partner in one of the shops.