HARISH BHATIA Vs. JOHRA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the tenant for quashing the judgment and order dated 10th December, 2007 passed by the learned additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut by which the appeal filed by the landlady under section 22 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') was allowed. The appeal had been filed for setting aside the order dated 12th december, 2002 passed by the prescribed authority by which the application filed by the landlady under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for eviction of the tenant from the shop in dispute was rejected.

(2.) THE application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, had been filed by the landlady Smt. Johra Begum on 30th April, 2002 stating inter alia that the opposite party was a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 900/-; that the family of the applicant consisted of the applicant, her husband and her married son Maqbool ahmad; that Maqbool Ahmad had studied up to 8th class and was unemployed; that after his marriage the responsibilities of his family consisting of himself, his wife and his young son fell upon him, that the applicant had no shop from where she could establish her son in business; that the opposite party did not require the tenanted shop as he had started business at Delhi and the shop was usually closed. It was, therefore, prayed that the shop be released as the applicant bona fide required the tenanted premises for establish-ing her son in business and the applicant was likely to suffer greater hardship if the application was rejected.

(3.) THE aforesaid release application was contested by the tenant. It was asserted that he was carrying on the business from the disputed shop; that his family consisted of himself, his wife and two sons; that apart from the disputed shop there was no other shop available with the tenant from where he could carry on his business; that he had earned goodwill of the business which he was doing from the disputed shop; that the landlady had concealed that the son of the landlady for whose need the release application had been filed was engaged in business from shop No. 181 at Sadar Bazar and that a shop was also available to the landlady on the second floor of the building which could be utilised for setting up the business for the son.