LAWS(ALL)-2007-12-99

SHAKUNTALA DEVI RATHOD Vs. RAJ KUMARI

Decided On December 11, 2007
Shakuntala Devi Rathod Appellant
V/S
RAJ KUMARI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS is landlady's writ petition arising out of eviction/release pro ­ceedings initiated by her against tenants -respondents on the ground of bona fide need under section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The release applica ­tion was registered as P.A. Case No. 47 of 2003 on the file of Prescribed Authority/J.S.C.C Jhansi. Property in dispute is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 90 per month. Landlady pleaded that she had four sons, out of whom two were doing business of readymade garments and she required the shop in dis ­pute for settling the other two sons i.e. Sri Sanjeev Singh and Sri Surjeet Singh. Initially late Sri Kishen Chandra Lekhadhari was the tenant of the shop in dispute. After his death the respondents inherited the tenancy. Release application was allowed on 1.12.2005. Against the said judgment and order tenants filed R.C. Appeal No. 13 of 2005. A.D.J. Court No. 1 Jhansi allowed the appeal through judgment and order dated 4.10.2006, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority and remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority. Landlady has challenged the said judgment of the Appellate Court through this writ petition.

(3.) PRESCRIBED Authority had held that tenants had ample commercial ac ­commodation at their disposal. However, Appellate Court held that it was not sufficient or relevant while considering the bona fide need of the landlord. Appellate Court held that merely because landlady wanted to settle all her sons in business was not sufficient to prove the bona fide need. This view is ut ­terly erroneous in law. Supreme Court in Sushila v. A.D.J. 2003 (52) ALR 707 (SC) = 2003 (9) AJC 156. and R.K. Covil v. Maqsoodan 2007 (67) ALR 774 (SC) = 2007 (53) AJC 30., has held that every adult member of the landlord's family is en ­titled to have independent separate business and no family member of the landlord can be compelled to participate in the family business. The Appellate Court while remanding the matter completely misdirected itself. Appellate Court held that it was necessary for the Prescribed Authority to decide as to whether the business of selling ready -made garments carried out by the two el ­der sons of the landlady i.e. Sri Rajeev and Ranjeet Singh was of such a scale that she required additional accommodation for the said purpose and that an ­nual turnover, sales tax, income tax documents in respect of the business of Rajeev Singh and Ranjeet Singh were not filed. The landlady had pleaded that her elder sons Rajeev Singh and Surjeet Singh were settled in business. Landlady did not seek release for expansion of business of Rajeev Singh and Ranjeet Singh. Release application was filed for settling other two sons of the landlady i.e. Sanjeev Singh and Surjeet Singh. In view of this it was wholly immaterial to ascertain the extent of business of Sri Rajeev and Ranjeet Singh.