LAWS(ALL)-1996-2-37

MURLIDHAR Vs. XITH ADDL D J MEERUT

Decided On February 27, 1996
MURLIDHAR Appellant
V/S
XITH ADDL D J MEERUT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21-7-1990 passed by the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2, releasing the shop in question in favour of landlord-respondent No. 3 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order dated 18-1-1996 dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a tenant of shop No. 55 situate in Subhash Bazar, District Meerut, Smt. Ram Kali Devi was the owner and landlady of the shop. She filed an application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on 6-8-1984 against the petitioner on the allegation that her son, Kailash Chandra was employed as clerk in Income Tax Department. He was not keeping good health and he had also taken premature retirement. He was unemployed. It was further stated that his two sons, namely, Krishna Gopal Gupta and Dinesh Chandra Gupta were also unemployed. THEy were aged 26 and 24 years. THE shop in question was required for carrying on business by Kailash Chandra, Krishna Gopal Gupta and Dinesh Chandra Gupta. THEy required the shop for carrying on business of general merchant. It was alleged that the petitioner was carrying on general merchant business but for the last ten years he has left the business and is selling newspapers. He does not require the shop in question.

(3.) THE Prescribed Authority found that Kailash Chandra and Dinesh Chandra Gupta were unemployeds. As regards Krishna Gopal Gupta it was held that he was employed. Considering the comparative hardship he found that in case the application of respondent No. 3 is rejected he will suffer a greater hardship. THE application was allowed by order dated 21-7-1990. THE petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order and the appeal has been dismissed by the appellate authority on 18-1-1996. THE petitioner has challenged these orders in the present writ petition.