DHARAM PAL Vs. VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-tenant has preferred this writ petition impugning the judgment and order dated 30.10.1986 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Bulandshahr by which the release application of respondent No. 3 has been allowed and the judgment and order dated 23.5.1990 passed by the VIIth Additional District Judge by which he has dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the judgment passed by the Prescribed Authority.

(2.) CERTAIN relevant facts may be stated. Respondent No. 3 preferred an application for release of the accommodation in question, which is a shop, under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). She contended therein that her son Rakesh Kumar is unemployed and he has no source of income. He wants to do business of General Merchandise in the shop in dispute. The owner-landlady so pleaded that she has no other accommodation in which the said son may carry on the business. It was also pleaded that the tenant-petitioner is no longer in the need of the shop in question as he has stopped transacting business in it and has also shifted from the Dibai town to Aligarh where he is residing with his son. The claim of the owner-landlady was contested by the tenant-petitioner. The parties in support of their respective claim had filed their affidavits. On the initiative of the owner-landlady the Prescribed Authority has issued a Commission. The Advocate Commissioner had visited at Debai Town and seen the accommodation in dispute and had also visited the house where the tenant used to reside. He has submitted a report that the shop was found locked and from what he saw from the ventilator was that no business has been transacted in it for a long period of time. The Advocate Commissioner also reported that the tenant-petitioner was not found in the house in which he used to reside. Instead one Dori Lal is the tenant and the tenant-petitioner has shifted his residence to Aligarh.

(3.) THE Prescribed Authority after considering the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the landlady has prima facie need of the accommodation in question and the tenant petitioner has not been transacting any business in the shop in question. The Prescribed Authority held that the need of the landlady is bona fide and for comparative hardship the finding of the Prescribed Authority is that in case the accommodation is not released in favour of the landlady then she will suffer more hardship than the tenant-petitioner because he is a person of advanced age and he has not tendered any material evidence which may establish that he was transacting the business in the shop in question. Accordingly the Prescribed Authority allowed the release application. Aggrieved by the same the tenant-petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Bulandshahr, and by transfer came before the VIIth Additioner District Judge. After hearing the Counsel for the parties the District Judge has upheld the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the tenant-petitioner's appeal. This writ petition has been preferred against the judgment and orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Additional District Judge.