RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the tenant for quashing of the judgment dated 24.4.2001, passed by the VIIth Additional District Judge, Moradabad, (Annexure No. 15 to the writ petition), whereby the Rent Control Appeal No. 35 of 1998, filed by the landlord Kamlesh Kumar has been allowed, and after setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 22.7.1998 the release application of the appellant for eviction of the petitioner has been allowed.

(2.) The dispute relates to a shop situated in Mohalla Bishanpur, Main Bazar, Kasba Kanth, District Moradabad, in which the petitioner is a tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 30.81 and respondent No. 2 is the owner of the said shop. The landlord respondent No. 2 has 5 shops out of which one shop is in the possession of the landlord; the second shops in the possession of the petitioner and 3 others shops are in occupation of tenants. Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the shop in occupation of the petitioner on the ground that the respondent No. 2 required the same for extending his business and consequently increasing his income as his family had increased. The need of the landlord of the premises in dispute is genuine. It was further alleged in the release application that the shop in occupation of the respondent No. 2 and that in occupation of the petitioner were adjoining each other and merely by removing the wall in between the respondent No. 2 will utilize the space of the shop in occupation of the petitioner and can extend his business. The respondent No. 2 also mentioned in the release application that he may either utilize the premises in dispute for extending his business or for setting a new business, as the case may be. It was further mentioned in Paragraph No. 7 of the release application that the other 3 shops in the ownership of the respondent No. 2 were situated at different places and it was only premises in dispute, which was best suited. The respondent No. 2 also mentioned in Paragraph Nos. 16, 17 & 18 of the release application, the details of various vacant shops in the same locality, which the petitioner could take on rent and carry on his business from there.

(3.) Reply was filed by the petitioner denying the allegations made in the release application and stating that the need set up by the landlord was not bona fide nor genuine and the release application had been filed only to harass the petitioner and to get the shop in dispute vacated and thereafter let it out on enhanced rent. It was further alleged that the petitioner has no other accommodation to shift his business and all the reference given by the respondent No. 2 in his release application are in respect of premises, which cannot be taken on rent.