JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. BRIGADIER DAYA KRISHNA RASTOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Som Narain Mishra for the petitioner and Shri Ashutosh Srivastava for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner retired from Indian Army and filed an application for release of two shops in the tenancy of the respondent for setting up business of distributing liquefied petroleum gas or any other agency. The application was rejected by the Trial Court on 5. 11. 1992 on the ground that the applicant has not started living at Hasanpur. He has houses at Dehradun and Noida. The house at Noida has been let out and it appears that the applicant is living in Dehradun. In the circumstances, it was found that he has not established the bona fide need for establishing business in the disputed shops.

(3.) THE order of the Prescribed Authority was challenged in RC Appeal No. 36 of 1994. The Appellate Court, while discussing the evidence with regard to bona fide need, called in aid the provisions of the Explanation (iii) to section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short, the Act) and relying upon Mahendra Pal Singh v. IInd Additional District Judge,1993 (1) ARC 210. in which it was held that the subject explanation is also applicable to the building used for non-residential purposes, proceeded to release the shops without recording finding of need and comparing the hardship between the landlord and the tenant.