KAFEEL AHMAD Vs. SATVINDRA KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlady-respondent against him on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 60 of 1997. Property in dispute is a shop which was purchased by landlady's father-in-law in her name on 17.12.1991. Petitioner is tenant of the said shop since before its purchase by landlady-respondent. Rent of the shop in dispute is Rs. 93.43 P. Landlady in her release application asserted that the shop was required for her husband Jagmohan Singh. It was further stated that previously Jagmohan Singh was doing business along with his father and brothers in the shop of his father, however, after the death of Asha Singh, her father-in-law on 30.4.1992, there was dispute among brothers and Jagmohan was separated from the shop in dispute.

(2.) Prescribed authority through judgment and order dated 10.9.1999 dismissed the release application. Prescribed Authority held that the alleged notice of six months as required by first proviso to Section 21 was not served upon the tenant. Prescribed Authority also held that need was not bonaflde, as husband of landlady was doing business in another shop, which initially belonged to his father and he had inherited the same after the death of his father. Against the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority landlady-respondent filed Appeal No. 22 of 1994. Additional District Judge, F.T.C. III, Saharanpur through judgment and order dated 6.12.2004 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application of the landlady. However, tenant was awarded damages equivalent to two years rent. This writ petition by the tenant is directed against the aforesaid judgment of the appellate court.

(3.) As far as the notice under first proviso to Section 21 of the Act is concerned, appellate court found that such notice was served upon the tenant. Appellate court further held that release application was filed after more than 5 years from purchasing the property, hence notice was not necessary. The last finding is perfectly in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anwarul Hasan Khan v. Mohd. Shafi and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 2984, JT 2001 (9) SC 84 , 2001 (7) SCALE 398 , (2001) 8 SCC 540 .