HARI KISHORE GUPTA Vs. RAMA NAND AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Bijai Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant/ tenant and Sri Atul Dayal assisted by Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff/ landlord.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:

(3.) Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that undisputedly the respondent-plaintiff is the landlord and the petitioner-defendant is the tenant of a shop in House No.33/32, Chowk, Kanpur Nagar. The respondent-defendant filed a Rent Case No.07 of 2010 under Sec. 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for release of the tenanted shop in occupation of the petitioner-defendant/tenant. The ground for seeking release of the shop was that the respondent-plaintiff has a family of four members, he is doing business at Pukhraya, District Kanpur Dehat which is about 60 kilometre away from Kanpur Nagar and there is bonafide need of the disputed shop for the purposes of business to be carried by his son. It is alleged by the petitioner-defendant/ tenant that there are five shops in the house in question out of which one shop is in occupation of the respondent-plaintiff and thus, there is no bonafide need. The petitioner-defendant raised other points also objecting the bonafide need of the respondent plaintiff. In paragraphs-13, 24, 26 and 27 of the affidavit dated 20.04.2011, the respondent plaintiff stated that he has a house in Mohalla Subhash Nagar Pukhraya. His son is not engaged in any business. There are seven shops on the ground floor of house in question. One shop is very small measuring 2.50 x 3 feet, which is under tenancy of Badri Prasad. Another shop is in the shape of almirah on the "Chabutara" which is under tenancy of one Sri Vijay Kumar Khandelwal. One shop each is under tenancy of the petitioner-defendant, Rajendra Kumar Gupta, G.L. Girmani, Anuj Kumar and Ajay Kumar respectively. One shop is in the back side which is under occupation of the respondent-plaintiff to which he offered to the petitioner defendant in exchange of the disputed shop. The respondent-plaintiff also came out with the case that the petitioner-defendant has two houses in Kanpur City being House No.90/56 and 90/57, Phoolwali Gali, Kanpur which are in market area and in which he has sufficient accommodation to run his business. Considering the evidences led by the parties and their submissions, the release application being Rent Case No.07 of 2010 was allowed by the Prescribed Authority/ II Additional Judge Small Causes Court, Kanpur by the impugned order dated 07.01.2012. Aggrieved with this judgment, the petitioner-defendant filed a Rent Appeal No.20 of 2012 which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 16.11.2016. Aggrieved with these two judgments, the petitioner-defendant filed the present writ petition.