BHANU PRAKASH CHATURVEDI Vs. JAIRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Sudeep Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Siddharth Dhaon, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties and perused the record.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2013, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Hardoi in Rent Appeal No.1 of 2004 as well as the judgment and order dated 07.04.2004, passed in P.A. Case No.02 of 1985.

(3.) THE brief facts of the case are that Smt. Ganga Devi along with her sons filed an application under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 for release of the shop in question. It was alleged that the applicants have purchased the house from Hemraj Shivni vide sale deed dated 09.12.1977 in which the shop is also situated and Hemraj Shivni had purchased the plot of the land from Sri Syed Ejaz Rasool vide sale deed dated 03.05.1954. Lalta Prasad Chaturvedi was the tenant of Hemraj Shivni at the rate of Rs.80/ - per month, in which the shop in the name and style of Prakash Gun House was carried out. After the death of Lalta Prasad Chaturvedi, his legal heirs became the tenant. The shop in question is in dilapidated condition, which requires reconstruction. It was further alleged that the shop in question was required for Triloki Nath and Ashok Kumar as well as the applicant nos. 3 and 4 who wanted to do their business. It was also alleged that the opposite party no.2 was an employee in the Railway and opposite party no.4 was carrying on the business in the name of Prakash Gun House. The opposite party no.3 had taken another shop on rent, in which he was doing business of Jawahar Machinery Store. The opposite parties had sought permission from the District Magistrate to carry on the business in the shop of Chaudhary Sarafat Ullah Kirmani and permission was granted to him. The notice was issued to the opposite parties to vacate the shop but they have not vacated the shop. It was also alleged in the replication that Lalta Prasad Chaturvedi had instituted a Misc. Case No.24 of 1978 for depositing the rent, in which he had admitted the ownership of the applicants. Another P.A.Suit No.07 of 1978 was instituted against Lalta Prasad Chaturvedi in which Lalta Prasad Chaturvedi and his successors had admitted the applicants as owner and landlord.