VED PRAKASH Vs. SURESH GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. The present writ petition relates to shop Nos. 115 and 116 Maam Road, Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as disputes shops ). The writ petition arises out of release proceedings in respect of the disputed shops initiated by Jagdish Saran Garg (now dead) against heirs of Gopi Chand who was the original tenant and he left behind him the opposite parties No. 1 to 5 in the release application. The landlord claimed that he needs the disputed shop to establish his son Suresh Chand who is selling medicines of M/s. Baidyanath as agent. The petitioner Ved PRAKASH was not impleaded as one of the opposite parties in the release application. He filed an application for his impleadment claiming that he is co-tenant of the disputed shops. The petitioner was permitted to be impleaded. The case of the landlord was that Ved PRAKASH, the petitioner, has no locus standi to intervene in the matter and he has been set up by the heirs of the erstwhile tenant Gopi Chand. According to the landlord, respondents herein, the heirs of Gopi Chand who have inherited the tenancy rights, are not doing any business in the disputed shops, have set up the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner in reply claimed co-tenancy right in the disputed property on the allegation that his father late Chiranji Lal was a co-tenant alongwith late Gopi Chand and both of them were carrying on the business in the disputed shop in the partnership. He submitted that earlier one Madan Lal was partner of Gopi Chand and thereafter Shri Chiranji Lal, adoptive father of the petitioner became partner in the Firm. THE rent receipts were being issued in the name of Gopi Chand but, as a matter of fact, both the partners were tenant. THE allegation of bona fide need of the landlord was also contested.

(3.) TO appreciate the above contention it is apt to notice the background facts of the case relevant to the issue involved in the present writ petition and the findings thereon.