SHIV SHANKER Vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant has filed this petition for setting aside the judgment and order dated 10th August, 2007 by which the Appeal filed by the landlord 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 and the tenant was directed to vacate the shop in dispute within six months.

(2.) THE records of the writ petition indicate that the landlord filed an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for eviction of the tenant from the shop in dispute on the ground that he was an Advocate and he bona fide required the premises for his office. The tenant filed a reply to the application and asserted that, in fact, the landlord was not engaged in the practice but was actually doing the business of 'ghee' and did not require the disputed shop at all. It was further asserted that the landlord had got vacated the adjoining shop and had thereafter let it out in 1991 and 1995 and as such his need was not bona fide.

(3.) THE Prescribed Authority by a detailed order dated 1st February, 2000 rejected the application filed by the landlord. It recorded a categorical finding that the landlord was not engaged in practice in the Civil Court and that he was actually doing business of 'ghee' under the name of 'indra Jai Store'. It also found as a fact that the landlord had obtained possession of the adjoining shop in the year 1991 from the heirs of Bhikki Ram on the basis of the proceedings taken by the landlord under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. The Prescribed authority did not accept the plea of the landlord that he had not obtained possession of the shop in the year 1991. This finding was recorded on the basis of Paper No. 33-Ga which was the application filed by the landlord wherein he had himself mentioned in paragraph 2 that he had obtained possession from the heirs of Bhikki Ram in 1991. The Prescribed Authority found that in the same document that the landlord had also stated that thereafter in view of the request made by Sanjay Agarwal he was inducted as a licensee. The prescribed Authority also placed reliance upon the document 44-Ga signed by the landlord and Sanjay Agarwal which indicated that Sanjay Agarwal had given possession of the shop to the landlord on 17th November, 1995. The prescribed Authority, therefore, concluded that the landlord had obtained possession of the shop once in the year 1991 and thereafter in November, 1995 and, therefore, if there was no bona fide need of the landlord then he would not have let out the shop again. The Prescribed Authority also noticed that the application under' section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was filed by the landlord on 7th october, 1995. The Prescribed Authority, therefore, rejected the application filed by the landlord.