MOHD. AYYUB Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, LUCKNOW & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in the present petition centres around shop situate in building 512/697 Ka, Balada Road, Nishatganj, Lucknow, of which the opposite party No. 2 is the landlord and the petitioner is the tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. The proceedings for ejectment of the tenant from over the shop in question was initiated by the landlord under Section 21(1)(a), U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, U.P. Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to be as 'Act') on the ground that the same was required by him to establish his son Mohd. Islam, in a tailoring business. It was alleged that the family consisted of himself, his wife, four daughters, one son, daughter-in-law, four grand-daughters, in total twelve members. It was further alleged that apart from the shop in question the opposite party No. 2 had no accommodation wherein his son Mohd. Islam could be settled for doing tailoring business.

(2.) THE case set up by the. landlord was denied by the petitioner by filing a written statement. According to the petitioner he was tenant of a tin shed and a kothri on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- per month. The accommodation in question was not required by the opposite party No. 2 to establish his son in tailoring business as the said son was already doing said business elsewhere. The petitioner was an old tenant of the building in question and was earning his livelihood by selling glass bangles. The need of the landlord was not bona fide and only in order to evict the petitioner from the accommodation in question, that the application was preferred with oblique motive and mala fide intention. It was further alleged that recently the landlord got a shop vacated in proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of Act XIII of 1972 against one Mohd. Haneef and had sold out the same and in case it was bona fide required for establishing his son in business, the same ought to have been retained. In support of their cases the petitioner as well as the opposite party No. 2 filed affidavits.

(3.) I have heard Sri Vijay Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Yogesh Kesarwani, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.