VIRENDRA KUMAR KHANNA Vs. MANISH CHHATWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition questioning the validity of order dated 14.03.2008 passed by Prescribed Authority, in P.A. Case No. 29 of 2004, Sri Manish Chhatwal v. Virendra Kumar Khanna, allowing release application of the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and the order of its affirmance dated 06.09.2008 passed in appeal No. 69 of 2008 preferred under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972.

(2.) BRIEF background of the case, as disclosed in the writ petition, is that petitioner is tenant of shop, which forms part of building No. 184, Abulane, Meerut on a monthly rent of Rs. 450/-. Said shop was let out to petitioner by Santosh Kumar Chhatwal on the basis of lease deed dated 07.11.1969 entered into between Santosh Kumar Chhatwal and Virendra Kumar Khanna. Said premises in question was subsequently sold to Manish Chhatwal by registered sale deed dated 28.08.1999. Said Manish Kumar Chhatwal moved release application for eviction of the aforementioned premises, mentioning therein that the said premises was bona fidely required by him as he waned to settle himself independently by establishing his own business in the shop in question. After the said release application had been filed on 11.03.2004, written statement was filed on behalf of the tenant, clearly and categorically taking the stand that need of the landlord was not at all bona fide and genuine one, and landlord was man of resources and artificially need had been set up, and further inter se parties there was lease deed, and therein it was clearly and categorically mentioned that tenant could be evicted only when he was in arrears of rent for three months. Therefore, in this background, release application was liable to be dismissed. Tenant-petitioner got his written statement amended on 23.04.2006 by adding expression to the effect that the sale deed dated 28.09.2008 was a sham and bogus transaction. The petitioner in support of his case filed his own affidavit and the copy of lease deed. The tenant also produced before the Prescribed Authority documentary evidence to show and substantiate huge transaction of money in respect of landlord, who claimed himself to be unemployed. The petitioner filed affidavit on 04.04.2006, denying his relation with another company M/S. Hindustan Compressors Limited and further denied the alleged status of Managing Director of M/S Lalco India Private Limited. It was also re-asserted that entire business of manufacturing and sale of sports goods was in the name of the mother of the respondent-landlord, but it was actually his business. The Prescribed Authority, on the basis of evidence adduced, allowed the release application. Against the said order appeal had been filed, which too has been dismissed. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) COUNTERING the said submissions, Sri Promod Jain, Advocate, contended that the lease deed in question did not prohibit the landlord from evicting the tenant on any of the grounds as contained under Section 21(1)(a) or Section 20(2) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. On conscious reading of relevant clauses of the lease deed in question, it is clear that the landlord never waived his right available to him under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, and further the lease deed being unregistered document, no benefit or advantage could be derived out of the same, and the finding of fact returned on the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship are just and proper based on appreciation of evidence, and as no attempt has been made by the petitioner- tenant to search for alternative accommodation, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.