ASSAN DAS Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, LUCKNOW AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are by tenant of shop No. 4 situate near Railway Level Crossing at Nishatganj, Lucknow, of which Smt. Jeet Kaur is the landlady Smt. Jeet Kaur will hereinafter be referred to as the 'landlady' and the petitioner Assan Das will hereinafter be referred to as the 'tenant'. Both the petitions arise from proceedings for eviction under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972), for short Act.

(2.) On 10-10-1975 the landlady filed the aforesaid application claiming release of the shop in question on the ground that it was required for setting up her son Amar Jeet Singh in business. It was stated that the said son had failed at the Intermediate examination conducted by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad, and he did not intend to study further and was keen on establishing himself in business. It was also stated that the said son had aptitude for business but was carrying on studies in uttar helplessness because no accommodation was available to settle him in business. The nature of business which the said son proposed to settle himself in was stated to be of general merchandise. In the application it was tried to be pointed out that the tenant did not stand in need of the shop in question as he had got employment with M/S Beauty Palace, Janpath Market, Hazratganj, Lucknow. It was also stated that the tenant was carrying on business initially under the name and style of Poonam Cloth House but afterwards be sub-let the shop and tailoring business was being done under the name and style of Stylish Tailor. During the pendency of the application, the application under Sec. 21 was amended and paragraph 7A was added wherein it was stated that the tenant had again sublet the shop in question to one Asha Nand who had purchased about five new sewing machines and kept the same in the shop in question. It was-stated that Asha Nand had another shop at Pandariba, Lucknow, near Baidya Nath Aurvedic Medicine shop where he carried on the business of readymade garments and suitcases. Asha Nand was alleged to have employed Mushtaqim alias chhotey son Hafiz of Nai Basti, Lucknow, for the purpose of running the tailoring business who was paying 25 per cent of the income to Asha Nand. The exclusive control and management of the tailoring business was alleged to be with Asha Nand. The landlady gave the undertaking not to let out the shop in question to any one of the same was got vacated from the tenant. She expressed her willingness to pay reasonable compensation to the tenant.

(3.) In his written-statement the tenant denied the landlady's plea of bona fide requirement of the shop for her son. He pleaded that the landlady's son was a minor and was studying in Kanya Kunj College and that the other sons of the landlady were well established and her husband was employed on handsome salary. It was also stated that the landlady had Rs. 650,00 per month as monthly income from the four shops. The total earning of the landlady's husband and her other sons was stated to be Rs. 5000.00 per month The landlady herself was alleged to be having a big poultry farm and it was pleaded that her son Amar Jeet could easily be absorbed in the said poultry farm. The landlady's allegation of subletting and taking up employment with M/S Beauty Palace was denied. It was tried to be asserted that the application was the result of the landlady's mala fides. One of the grounds of mala fides was the desire of the landlady to enhance the rent. In this context it was pointed out that earlier too there had been litigation between the landlady and the tenant but the landlady failed therein and thereafter the present application had been filed. Subsequently paragraph 12A was added to the written-statement in which it was stated that during the pendency of the proceedings the landlady's son Amar Jeet had completed his higher education and had settled in service and was posted outside Lucknow and was getting handsome salary. On this basis it was asserted that the purpose for which the application under Sec. 21 was moved had been frustrated.