MANGAT RAM Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE DISTRICT PAURI GARHWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners (ten ants) have challenged the judgement and orders dated 04-0/-1998 (Annexure 1) passed by District Judge, Pauri Garhwal and judgment and order dated 12-04-1996 (Annexure 2) passed by the Pre scribed Authority/civil Judge (Jr. Di vision), Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, whereby the shop in question has been released in favour of the landlord- respondent No. 3.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as nar rated in the writ petition, are that respondent No. 3 is landlord of the shop in question,-who moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lettings, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for release of the shop situated at Station Road, Kotdwar. The land lord sought release of the shop with the allegations that he needs the shop which is in the tenancy of the peti tioners on the ground that his mar ried son has to run his business there. The petitioners (tenants) contested the application before authorities be low challenging the bonafide need of the landlord. It was also pleaded by the tenants that there is no alterna tive accommodation available for them where they can shift their busi ness. It was further pleaded that ear lier also a Small Cause Court suit was also instituted for eviction of the pe titioners on the ground of sub letting and material alterations, but the same was dismissed by the Small Cause Court, and, revision against it was also dismissed. After taking evidence of the parties and hearing them, the Prescribed Authority passed the order dated 12-04-1996 releasing the shop in question in favour of the landlord. Aggrieved by said order, the petition ers filed an appeal under Section 22 of the aforesaid Act before the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, which was also dismissed vide order dated 04-0/-1998. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) BEFORE further discussion, it is pertinent to mention here, that impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 shows that the petitioners have suggested before lower appellate court that the shop in question can be divided and the landlord's son can start his business in half portion of the shop in question. However, it ap pears that the lower appellate court did not give any categorical finding if it is possible and if it satisfies the need of the landlord.