BANNO Vs. RASHEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant s petition questioning the validity of order dated 18.01.2008 passed by Prescribed Authority, 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 20.09.2008 passed in appeal 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 the landlord filed release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for shop in question, wherein petitioner was carrying on Dry Cleaning Business. The need, which was set up in the release application, was for the son, Allah Bux, who was unemployed, so that he may open general merchant shop and settle himself. Said application was objected to by filing written statement and taking stand therein that the need was neither bona fide nor genuine, and further, the son was already engaged in the business of trading of cattle and the family in question was influential. It was also sought to be contended that landlord had purchased another shop in the name of his brother, which was situated towards southern side road of Madina Hotel having water rate No. 2930. It was also asserted that landlord had two storied building at Delhi Gate Road, wherein there were two shops on ground floor. During pendency of proceedings, tenant died and his widow was substituted. In support of his case, landlord filed his own affidavit as well as affidavit of his son. The petitioner got filed affidavits of Kartar Singh, Haria and Devi Ram. The Prescribed Authority considered the case and need of the landlord was found to be bona fide and genuine. On comparative hardship front also finding was returned in favour of the landlord. Aggrieved against the said order, appeal was preferred by petitioner and the same was also dismissed. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Sri P.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rajesh Pachauri and Sri Amitabh Agrawal, Advocates, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case, need in question was not at all bona fide and genuine, rather it was patently whimsical, as the landlord had got alternative accommodation, which was equally suitable, and as landlord had arbitrarily chosen the present premises in question, the finding of fact recorded on the question of bona fide need is unsustainable, and coupled with this, petitioner is ready to shift to alternative accommodation, but the said facet has not been considered, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.