MANOJ KUMAR Vs. BHARTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord has sought the quashing of the judgment dated 22nd November, 2005 by which the Appeal filed by the tenant under section 22 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') has been allowed and the order dated 11th October, 2000 passed by the Prescribed Authority for eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute has been set aside.

(2.) THE landlord filed an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for eviction of the tenant from shop No. 75 situated in Gusainpura Chowk jhansi on the ground that the building was bona fide required by the landlord. It was inter alia stated that the applicant was the owner and landlord of the shop which had been taken on rent by the husband of opposite party No. 1 Smt. Bharti Devi for doing cloth business but after his death his son is doing business of selling milk from the shop; that the applicant had completed 34 years of age and had obtained a Diploma in Electronics from Government Polytechnic jhansi, but could not succeed in getting a job; that the applicant was unemployed and there was no hope of getting any service as he had become overage; that the applicant does not have any source of income and wanted to establish television business from the disputed shop; that the opposite parties did not need the shop at all since they have in their possession other shops from where they were doing business.

(3.) A written statement was filed by the opposite parties. It was stated that the need of the applicant was not bona fide. It was also asserted that the contention of the applicant that he was unemployed and had no source of income was incorrect; that the shop in dispute was taken on rent in the year 1981 by Ramesh Chandra, husband of opposite party No. 1 Smt. Bharti Devi, for doing cloth business which business is being carried out even after the death of ramesh Chandra on 10th March, 1995; that the opposite parties do not have any other shop except the disputed shop; that the applicant was not unemployed but was doing business of readymade garments from shop No. 76 which was adjacent to the disputed shop.