SHABBIR Vs. IIND ADDL. DIST.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by original landlord - Murlidhar on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of UP. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. case No. 2 of 1985 on the file of Prescribed Authority/Munsif, Tilhar District Shahjahanpur. Property in dispute is a shop rent of which is Rs. 7/- per month. In the release application it was stated that Smt. Bitti Devi daughter of original landlord - Murlidhar alongwith her husband (Ram Chandar) and children was residing with him and shop in dispute was required for settling Ram Chandar and Smt. Bitti Devi in business. During pendency of release application original landlord - Murlidhar died and was substituted by his daughter Smt. Bitti Devi respondent No. 3 in the instant writ petition.

(2.) PRESCRIBED authority held that Ram Chandar husband of respondent No. 3 was doing business from a tenanted shop belonging to one Jugal Kishore. Prescribed authority, therefore, held that need was not bona fide. Prescribed authority also observed that it was not stated in the release application that what business Ram Chandar would do from the shop in dispute and from where he would arrange the capital therefor. Prescribed Authority also decided the question of hardship in favour of the tenant. Ultimately release application was rejected through the judgment and order dated 2-5-1988. Against the said judgment and order respondent No. 3 - landlady filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1988. IInd A.D.J. Shahjahanpur through judgment and order dated 19-4-1991 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed authority and allowed the release application, hence, this writ petition by the tenant.

(3.) IT has been held by the Supreme Court in R.K. Khaitan v. B.Z. Khatun, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 576 that it is not necessary for the landlord to disclose the nature of business which he intends to start in the shop sought to be released. It has also been held in G.C. Kapoor v. N.K. Bhasin, A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 200 : (2001 All LJ 2915) that it is not necessary for the landlord to show that from where he would arrange the capital for the proposed business from the shop sought to be released.