IFTIKHAR MEHDI Vs. MOHD. YUSUF AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's petition directed against order of eviction passed against him by the Appellate Court in proceeding under Sec. 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (No. 13 of 1972), for short Act. The dispute in the petition pertains to Shop No. 72, situate at Mohalla Nai Bazar, Qasba Nanpara, District Bahraich.

(2.) The application under Sec. 21 was moved by four persons, namely, Mohammad Yusuf, Mohammad Yunus, Mohammad Masood and Abdul Jabbar, Opposite Parties 1 to 4. Opposite Party No. 1 is the father of Opposite Parties 2 to 4. It was stated in the application that Mohammad Yusuf was previously the owner of the shop indispute but in 1975 he made an oral gift thereof in favour of his three sons and the shops in question was required for the watch repairing business of his first two sons, namely, Mohammad Yunus and Mohammad Masood, which business, in the absence of any shop with the landlords, was being done on the foot-path of a public road. Regarding the remaining son Abdul Jabbar it was stated that he was doing nothing. The family of the landlords was alleged to be comprising in all of thirteen members and the income for feeding these thirteen members was stated to be derived from one acre agricultural land belonging to Opposite Party No. 1. This agricultural land was alleged to be affected by floods and it was stated to be capable of yielding only one crop in a year. Income from the land was alleged to be meagre to maintain the large family of thirteen members. Apart from this agricultural land and the shop in dispute, the landlord opposite parties admitted ownership of a shop which was stated to be mortgaged with possession to Sabir against a loan of Rs. 3000.00 advanced by him. This shop was disclosed to be situate at Mohalla, Qila, Qasba Nanpara, District Bahraich and its measurements were given as 10' X 6'. The tenant-petitioner was stated to be well to do person having several sources of income. On this basis it was pleaded that he will not suffer any hardship if he was required to vacate the shop in dispute in favour of the landlord opposite parties. However, the alleged several sources of income were not specified.

(3.) The above application was contested by the tenant-petitioner who filed his written-statement, Annexure-4, asserting therein that he had been a tenant of the shop in dispute for the last more than thirty years and had been carrying on the business of repairing watches and radios for the same period. It was pleaded that the petitioner's family was large and income from the shop was the only source of livelihood. The petitioner's business in the shop in dispute was alleged to have earned a good will. The need set up by the landlord opposite parties was stated to be false and it was asserted that they had suppressed properties and business owned by them. According to the petitioner the landlord opposite parties owned and possessed the following properties and businesses:-