QAMRUDDIN Vs. NOOTAN KUMAR DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner tenant, challenging the order of eviction passed against him under Sec. 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.

(2.) The respondent no.1 landlord initiated proceedings under Sec. 21 of the Act for eviction on the ground that there has been a family partition, in which the tenanted portion has fallen in his share. It was pleaded that son of the landlord i.e. Rishi Kumar wanted to establish a shop for pump testing, by installing its machine etc., and for his requirement and need, the shop in question is required. It was further stated that the tenant had purchased a plot of land at Kalu Kuan, adjacent to main road, in which he has already raised construction of shop and house. It was further stated that Kalu Kuan is one of the busiest commercial area of Banda and tenant has alternative accommodation available, which is not being availed of. Further averments were made that there are other places available for running the shop and that the tenant also has residential accommodation where he can operate his shop.

(3.) Proceedings were contested by the petitioner tenant with the allegation that it was understood between the parties that proceedings for eviction would not be initiated as he had continued to pay rent @ Rs.2,000.00 per month, in proceedings drawn earlier for eviction due to non payment of rent. It was also stated that son of the landlord was already running a service station in open portion behind the shop in question and that he can always run the shop from such premises. Further plea was taken that the shop in question is being run since long and the tenant would stand to loose goodwill if he is asked to shift the shop to another place. It was also stated that licence has been issued for the specific place to operate the gun shop and the tenant would loose licence if he is asked to shift his shop to any other place.