SUNEEL KAPOOR Vs. VIIITH A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed' by the landlords whose release application filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 30.4.1998 and shop in question was released in their favour. However, Rent Control Appeal No. 123 of 1998 filed by the tenant was allowed by the respondent No. 1 on 23.8.1999. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 23.8.1999 passed by respondent No. 1.

(2.) The dispute relates to a shop situate in Mohalla Gudari Bazar Chowk, Shahjahanpur which was let out to Vishnu Saran Agarwal, father of respondents No. 2 to 5 on a monthly rent of Rs. 400 excluding municipal taxes and electricity charges. Late Laxmi Narain Kapoor and his brothers were owners and landlords of the shop in question and the application was moved by Laxmi Narain Kapoor as 'Karta' of the joint Hindu family. He died on 22.11.1999 and as such, his only son Suneel Kapoor and his uncles filed this petition. The application was filed with the allegations that after completing his education (LL.B. course) Sandeep Kumar, aged about 22 years, son of Mool Narain Kapoor, wanted to start his business independently with a view to minimize economic burden on his parents and to augment the resources of the family. In view of increase in number of members of the family and the necessary expenses also, Sandeep Kumar was interested in starting his business in the disputed shop with a view to meet his requirement as well as requirement of the family. It was also alleged that the family suffered losses in the business and the family had a shop in which retail business of cloth was running. Moreover, new shops had been built in the market and were lying vacant and the tenant would get the shop on rent without any difficulty. Moreover, the tenant had purchased a shop at a distance of fifty steps only from the shop In question. It was also pleaded that the application was bona fide and in case, the shop was not released for doing business by Sandeep Kumar, the landlords would suffer more hardship than the tenant. A notice was also served on the tenant before filing the release application and the tenant replied the notice through his counsel.

(3.) The tenant filed a reply and contested the application mainly on the grounds, inter alia, that the shop in question was not owned by the joint Hindu family nor applicant's brother had a joint family. In fact, the landlords wanted to enhance the rent of the shop in question from Rs. 400 to Rs. 1000 per month and filed the application for release with a view to pressurize him. He was doing business of tailoring in the disputed shop for the last 25 years. He searched a shop in Mohalla Gudari Bazar which was adjacent to locality but no shop was built nor was lying vacant. It was further pleaded that Sandeep Kumar was a practicing lawyer and was assisting his father Mool Narain Kapoor who was a leading advocate of the district. Sandeep Kumar had no interest in starting business and had no experience and the need shown in the application was mala fide. The tenant further alleged that his family consisted of husband, wife and two children and the tailoring shop was the only source of his livelihood. The applicant's family had business of Sarafa, brick-kilns and cloth business and had good income. Sri Mool Narain Kapoor, father of Sandeep Kumar, earned Rs. 25,000 per month from legal profession and other business. In case, the shop was released in favour of landlords, the tenant would be rendered jobless and would not be in a position to maintain his family,