CHANDRA Vs. VTH ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by an order dated 29.11.1982 (Annexure -1 to this petition) passed by the appellate Authority in the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereunder allowing the appeal the application for the release of the shop in dispute has been granted holding the tenant liable to be evicted and allowing him two months' time to vacate the demised premises. She has now approached this Court seeking redressal praying for the reversal of the impugned order. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case, lie in a narrow compass. The landlord respondent No. 3 filed an application seeking release of the accommodation in dispute initiating the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The case of the applicant is that he is Muttwalli -landlord of premises No. 93/135, Nai Sarak, Kanpur. A shop in this premises was in the tenancy of Fateh Chand, husband of Smt. Chandra Petitioner tenant. He died in the year 1977. He executed a Will in favour of the petitioner through which the tenancy rights in the shop in dispute were bequeathed to her. The deceased as well as the petitioner have been carrying on the business of manufacturing and supplying chappals in the shop in dispute. The landlord is a youngman of marriageable age. He has no source of income except income from waqf property as beneficiary. He wants to settle himself and has trained himself in tobacco business. He wants to open a retail tobacco shop. He has no other accommodation. As per his allegation, the tenant owns house No. 122/580, Shastri Nagar, where there are four shops on the ground floor and one of them can be used by the tenant. Thus alleging his pressing and bonafide need, he applied for the release of the shop in dispute.

(2.) THE claim of the landlord was contested by the tenant petitioner on various grounds asserting that the alleged need set up by the landlord was not genuine and bonafide, and that the tenant was likely to suffer greater hardship as compared to the landlord in the event of the grant of the application.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.