MULAKHRAJ Vs. LAJPAT RAI VARSHNEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE tenant has filed this petition for setting aside the order dated llth August, 2006 passed by the prescribed authority by which the application filed by the landlord under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the tenant from the disputed shop, was allowed. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the judgment dated 12th March, 2008 by which the appeal filed by the tenant under section 22 of the Act of setting aside the aforesaid order of the prescribed authority, was dismissed.

(2.) AN application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was filed by the landlord with the allegation that the opposite party was a tenant of the disputed shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 275/-; that the applicant No. 1-Lajpat Rai was a teacher in the primary school and only two years were left for his retirement; that because of the low salary he was unable to properly maintain his family which consisted of himself, his wife, two sons, four daughters and his mother; that his eldest son Saurabh had done his B. Sc. while his second son was studying in Class VIII; that looking to his financial position, the only option left with him was to establish his son Saurabh in business of ready-made garments; that there was no other shop available with the landlord from where Saurabh could start this business; that the two door tenanted shop in possession of the opposite party remained closed and no business was being carried out from that shop; that the tenant also in possession of two shops of which Mulakhraj was the landlord just opposite the tenanted shop and that the tenant along with his two sons was carrying the business of selling wheat and also had a wheat grinding machine and that in such circumstances when the tenanted shop was kept closed and the tenant along with sons was also doing business from two shops right across from the tenanted shop, the landlord was likely to suffer greater hardship In the event the application was rejected.

(3.) A reply to the aforesaid application was filed by the tenant. It was stated that Saurabh was still studying and so there was no need to do business; that the tenanted shop was not suitable for doing business of ready-made garments as the entire market in the vicinity of the shop was of general merchant and vegetable sellers; that the landlord had many properties and the shop in question was not required for business purpose; that it was wrongly stated by the landlord that the shop in question remained closed and the tenant was not doing any business from that shop, because if this was so the landlord would not have kept quiet for the last twelve years and would have got vacancy declared under section 12 of the Act; that the shop opposite the tenanted shop is in the tenancy of the opposite party and his brother Hans Raj and in this shop a wheat grinding machine is installed which is run by the two sons and that the tenant was carrying business of food against from the shop in dispute. It was, therefore, stated that in such circumstances the application was liable to be rejected.