RAJESH KUMAR RAHUJA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE petitioner has sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 4th December, 2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Gorakhpur by which Rent Appeal No. 10 of 2002 filed by the landlord for setting aside the judgment of the learned Judge, Small Causes Courts, Gorakhpur has been allowed and the tenant has been directed to handover vacant possession of the shop to the respondent/landlord within three months.

(2.) THE respondent-landlord had filed an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') for release of the shop of which the petitioner was a tenant. The need that had been set up in the release application was for starting the business for the second unemployed son Vikas Anand. It was stated that the tenanted premises was required so that Vikas Anand could run the shop of General Merchant and Confectionery. The release application was contested by the tenant alleging that the applicant Chandrabhan had no authority to move the release application as the other co-landlords, namely his brother and his mother, had not been impleaded; that Vikas Anand was a minor as he was only about 16 to 17 years of age; that the shop was not bona fide required for establishing the business for the second son; that the landlord had a very big vacant land in Padari Bazaar, Gorakhpur which could be utilized for setting up the business for the second son and that the residential house of the tenant was situated in a 'gali' which could not be utilized for business purposes.

(3.) THE Prescribed Authority rejected the release application by the order dated 6th September, 2002 on the ground that the release application lacked bona-fides as the applicant Chandrabhan had concealed facts and the release application was also not maintainable since" it had been moved without the permission of the other co-landlords namely his brother and his mother. The partition amongst the brothers on which reliance had been placed by the applicant-landlord and according to which the disputed shop fell in his share was also discarded. The Prescribed Authority also observed that the need that had been set up by the landlord was for establishing his second son Vikas Anand in business but as he was a minor he was incapable of doing business from the shop. The Prescribed Authority was also of the opinion that the tenant would suffer greater hardship if he was asked to vacate the shop as the landlord was already doing business with his son Vikas Anand from another shop.