JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT nos. 4 and 5 are the landlords of the disputed shop. It was let out to the petitioner in the year 1955 on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. Misc. Case No. 170 of 1974 was filed by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 for the release of the aforesaid shop in their favour on the ground that Suresh Chand, the respondent no. 4, was unemployed and that he required the shop to start a new business. It was also alleged that the family of respondent no. 4 consists of himself, his wife and four children, two of whom were school going and without starting a business It was impossible for him to maintain the big family. The allegations made further were that the petitioner was a rich person and had constructed a big building on an area of 2000 sqr. yards, he had a number of shops in this building where he could shift his business.

(2.) THE application was contested by the petitioner on the grounds that he was the tenant of the premises in dispute since 1955 and had acquired a goodwill for running his business. THE respondent nos. 4 and 5 had two vacant shops, one in Sotiganj in which formerly Sri Suresh Chand, the respondent no. 4, was running a Saree Emporium and another shop in the same locality in which he was formerly running a Laundry. According to the pleas taken in the written statement these two shops were vacant and that the respondent no. 4 could start his business in either of them. THE petitioner denied that he had another alternative accommodation available to him which could shift his business.

(3.) COMING to the question of hardship, the submission made was that as he was doing his business in the premises since 1955, the petitioner had acquired goodwill and, therefore, the application filed by the respondent no. 4 should have been rejected. Reference was made to clause (a) of sub rule (2) of rule 16 of the rules framed under the Act in support of his argument.