MATA PRASAD Vs. VIJAI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-tenant challenges the order dated 31st May, 2003, passed by the prescribed authority and the order dated 29th October, 2004, passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, copies whereof are annexed as Annexure Nos. 'XI' and 'XII', respectively, to the writ petition.

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner is the tenant of the accommodation in question, which is a shop from where he is carrying on his business. The aforesaid shop was let out to the tenant-petitioner in the year 1982. The landlord-respondent filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, (In short 'the Act'), for the release of the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord on the ground that the landlord requires the aforesaid shop in question to settle his two sons, namely, Manish Kumar, who did his M.Sc. And Rajnish Kumar, who did B.Com. and his both sons are un-employed and they want to start the business of electronic goods from the shop in question. The tenant-petitioner filed an objection to the aforesaid release application and disputed that the landlord bona fide requires the shop in question to settle down his sons. It is submitted by the petitioner in his objection that in fact the landlord is carrying on his business from shop No. 233/1, which is different shop than the shop in question and his both sons are engaged by assisting the landlord in the business of landlord. It is further stated by the tenant-petitioner that there is another shop of the landlord being 233/3 wherein tenant, namely, Ram Bachan Seth is carrying on business and against him the landlord also filed application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. The similar application has been filed by the landlord with regard to the other tenants, namely, tenant of shop Nos. 233/4, 233/5 and 233/6 for release of the shops occupied by the tenants of the aforesaid shop nos, same are pending. The landlord-respondent also filed evidence to the effect that the petitioner and his father is carrying on business, wherein his father was looking after the business, therefore if the shop in question is released in favour of the landlord, the tenant-petitioner will not suffer any loss, he can comfortably shift the business to the shop, which at present is run by his father.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the prescribed authority found that the need of the landlord for settling down his sons is bona fide need. The prescribed authority also arrived at the conclusion that since the father of the petitioner-tenant owns several shops, which are vacant as such the tenant will have no difficulty in shifting to any of the shops owned by his father which, is still vacant. Thus, the prescribed authority vide its order dated 31st May, 2003 allowed the release application filed by the landlord and directed for release of the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord.