YOGESH KHATRI Vs. RAM GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the tenant-petitioner and Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for the landlord-respondent and perused the record.

(2.) Present petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned judgement and order dated 29.5.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Mathura in P.A. Appeal No. 1 of 2009 (Yogesh Khatri Vs. Ram Gopal) and the judgement and order dated 23.1.2009 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Mathura in P.A. Case No. 10 of 2000 (Ram Gopal Vs. Yogesh Khatri) respectively.

(3.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that the landlord-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) filed a release application under Sec. 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 regarding the shop in question being Municipal Waterate No. 501 old 48/159 and 1261/B and 1261/C, Generalganj, Mathura on the ground that earlier father of the petitioner Gopal Das was tenant in the shop and after his death petitioner herein is the tenant of the shop since April, 1999 at the rate of Rs. 200.00 per month and that he has stopped paying rent since May, 1999. The shop is very old and is in dilapidated condition and its roof and walls had fallen down and it is being kept locked by the tenant. It was alleged that the release application may be allowed so that he may get the shop back and get it reconstructed and establish his sons in business as his sons are unemployed. It was further alleged that the landlord and his wife both are working in Health Department and are residing at Hathras whereas his sons namely Pooran Lal aged about 26 years and Jagdish aged about 22 years both living at Mathura are not engaged in any business and are unemployed and since he (the landlord) is also to retire in near future, they are in urgent need of the shop in question. It was also alleged that the tenant does not have any requirement of the shop as two shops within the Nagar Palika Limit in Pratappur, Matura are available to the tenant-petitioner and two shop at Mathura are also available to him on which he and his brother are doing business. It was further alleged that the tenant is engaged in TV journalism, therefore, he does not require the shop in question.