AKBAR HUSSAIN Vs. SMT. NAZMA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.9.2017 passed by the District Judge, Moradabad in Rent Control Appeal No. 23 of 2015 (Akbar Hussain v. Smt. Nazma Begum) under Section 22 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 and order dated 23.5.2015 passed by Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (J.D.), Sambhal under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 in P.A. Case No. 1 of 2009.

(2.) By the impugned judgment and order dated 23.5.2015 the release application filed by the landlady-respondent under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act 13 of 1972 was allowed. The appeal against the same by the tenant-petitioner was also dismissed. The findings of bona fide issue and comparative hardship were decided against the tenant. In the plaint the case was that the original landlord Zamiruddin died and thereafter the suit was filed by his widow Nazma Begum on the ground that she had two sons and three daughters, out of which elder son died in an accident and younger son is aged about 8 years and the daughters, who are carrying on tailoring job needs the shop for carrying on some business to sustain her family. The suit was contested by the tenant on the ground that other co-sharers have not joined the plaint and therefore, the suit itself was not maintainable and one Javed, who is nephew of the landlady is helping the family and there is no bona fide need of the landlady in the present case and her younger son is minor and daughters are earning well from tailoring job, which they are doing from the residence. It was also pointed out that she has two other shops occupied by the other tenants and therefore, she has sufficient income. The bona fide need was found to be in favour of the landlady and it was also noticed that the facts asserted by the landlady that during pendency of the litigation the tenant has purchased one shop, which he never tried to get the shop vacated, which is occupied by his real Phupha and therefore, the tenant has alternative shop for carrying on his business, whereas the landlady has no shop for the purpose of carrying on the business. It was also found that during the pendency of the litigation the tenant did not make any effort to search out any other shop. The comparative hardship was also found in favour of the landlady and the appeal was also dismissed upholding such findings.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the other co-sharers have not joined as plaintiff, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. It was further submitted that finding of bona fide need is also incorrect inasmuch as the landlady is pardanashi and her daughters are earning well from tailoring job and since her son is still minor, who cannot carry on business and the findings regarding the other shop purchased by the tenant is also incorrect and he does not have any shop.