PRAHLAD TAMOLI Vs. RAJESH KUMAR AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Smt. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The tenant/petitioner has come up in writ jurisdiction challenging the order dated 13.02.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Mathura in Rent Control Appeal No. 10 of 2007, dismissing the appeal of the tenant/petitioner and affirming the order dated 19.07.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mathura/Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 19 of 1994.

(3.) In brief, the facts of the case is that the respondent/landlord being unemployed required the shop in dispute for setting up a business of general merchandise. He claimed that apart from the shop in dispute he did not have any other shop. Further, the premises was also said to be dilapidated. Accordingly, the release of the premises was sought both under Section 21(1)(a) and under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act No. 13 of 1972. The matter was contested by the petitioner/tenant, who instead asserted that the landlord was settled in a business of silver ware, and, as such did not require the shop in dispute. It was further asserted that the landlord/respondent owned multiple commercial properties, as such also, his need was not bonafide.