AJAI AND ORS. Vs. GHANSHYAM DAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.3.1997 passed by Respondent No. 3 in Appeal No. 7 of 1996, Ajay and others v. Ghanshyam Das and others. The facts in brief are that Respondent No. 1 filed application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of the disputed shop on the allegation that Har Govind was the tenant of the shop in question. The landlord has four sons namely, Vinod Kumar, Pramod Kumar, Krishna Gopal and Hari Om. Vinod Kumar is in service. The second son, Pramod Kumar is doing business in Sipari Bazar. Krishna Gopal and Hari Om are major. The landlord wants to set up these two sons in business. The tenant has shop of paintings and arts and he can carry on business at any other place.

(2.) THE application was contested by the tenant. It was denied that the petitioner is a tenant. The property was purchased by Kamla Devi and the applicant has no right and title in the property in question and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. It was denied that Krishna Gopal and Hari Om are major.

(3.) DR . Daya Shankar, learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that it has not been established from the evidence on the record that there was relationship between the applicant and Sri Ghanshyam Das, respondent. I have perused the order passed by Respondent No. 3. It has been found that there was relationship of landlord and tenant. This finding does not suffer from any manifest error of law. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have assailed the finding regarding the alleged need of the sons of the landlord. They had earlier filed an application for release against another tenant, Nandu, under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority but it was rejected on the ground that the shop of Nandu was too small and it was not possible that the sons of landlord will be able to run any business. It has been found that there is no other shop to establish the two sons of the landlord, namely, Krishna Gopal and Hari Om, in business. This finding does not suffer from any illegality.