KAFEEL AHMAD Vs. SATVINDRA KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlady-respondent against him on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of PA Case No. 60 of 1997. Property in dispute is a shop which was purchased by landlady's father-in-law in her name on 17-12-1991. Petitioner is tenant of the said shop since before its purchase by landlady- respondent. Rent of the shop in dispute is Rs. 93. 43 P. Landlady in her release application asserted that the shop was required for her husband Jagmohan Singh. It was further stated that previously Jagmohan Singh was doing business alongwith his father and brothers in the shop of his father, however, after the death of Asha Singh, her father-in-law on 30-4-1992, there was dispute among brothers and Jagmohan was separated from the shop in dispute.

(2.) PRESCRIBED authority through judgment and order dated 10-9- 1999 dismissed the release application. PRESCRIBED Authority held that the alleged notice of six months as required by first proviso to Section 21 was not served upon the tenant. PRESCRIBED Authority also held that need was not bona fide, as husband of landlady was doing business in another shop, which initially belonged to his father and he had inherited the same after the death of his father. Against the judgment and order of the PRESCRIBED Authority landlady-respondent filed Appeal No. 22 of 1994. Additional District Judge, F. T. C. III, Saharanpur through judgment and order dated 6-12-2004 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the PRESCRIBED Authority and allowed the release application of the landlady. However, tenant was awarded damages equivalent to two years rent. This writ petition by the tenant is directed against the aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Court.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the tenant has very vehemently argued that Jagmohan Singh, husband of the landlady was doing business in a shop belonging to his father in the name of Guru Govind Singh Kerana Store since life time of his father and it was not most un-natural to provide in the partition that the said shop would be given to other brother Charan Jeet Singh and Jagmohan and his family would be maintained by Charan Jeet Singh. Elabotaring his arguments further the learned Counsel for the tenant- petitioner has argued that due to this flaw it becomes quite apparent that the said partition was entered into only for creating a ground for release of the shop in dispute.