VISHAMBHAR SAHAI Vs. SATWANT KAUR VADHWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner tenant has come in writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 18 March 2015 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Meerut in P.A. Appeal No.118 of 2012 (Smt. Satvant Kaur Vs. M/s Bishambhar Sahai & Sons) allowing the release application of the respondent landlady.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the respondent landlady made an application seeking release of shop being Shop no. 245-A & 245-B situate in Mohalla Rangsaaz, Sadar, Meerut Cantt., Meerut, under Sec. 21 (1)(a) of Act no. 13 of 1972 setting up a need for her two unemployed sons. It was stated that the landlady was engaged in her business in the name and style 'The King Dyers Dry Cleaners' in shop no. 245 situate in Mohalla Rangsaaz, Sadar, Meerut Cantt., Meerut. The landlady required the shop to set-up the business of ready made garments for elder son Amardeep, who has no interest in the business of dry-cleaning. The petitioner-tenant filed objection/written statement stating that several accommodation, being premises no. 245 C, D and E were available with the landlady for setting up the business for her son. She has one tenanted accommodation being premises No. 235, Masjid Ghusyan Rangsaaz Sadar, Meerut Cantt. across the shop in dispute for commercial purposes, she is running a Boys Hostel in premises No.133, Prithviraj Puri, Bakri Mohalla, Lal Kurti, Meerut Cantt. The sons of the landlady were already engaged in the business of dry-cleaning along with her mother/landlady. The landlady has several other properties viz. 245 C, 245 D and 245 E, further, it is stated that the petitioner would suffer greater hardship in case, is directed to be evicted from the shop in question.

(3.) The Prescribed Authority by the judgment and order dated 18.08.2012 rejected the release application, while doing so it noted that the accommodation in possession of the landlady was sufficient, her sons were engaged in the business of ready made garment and dry-cleaning, hence, were not unemployed. Reference was made to the income tax return of Amardeep to hold that he was engaged in his mother's business being an income tax assessee. A finding was recorded that the landlady had accommodation at the first floor of the building in which she was doing business of dry-cleaning, further being aged about 73 years, she could not carry on business by herself. Aggrieved, by the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority, the respondent/ landlady assailed the order in appeal, by the impugned order dated 18.03.2015 the Appellate Authority allowed the release application by setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority.