DURGA PRASAD BANSAL Vs. VIMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application 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) was filed by the landlord on 23rd October, 2007 for eviction of the tenant from the shop in dispute on the ground that the landlord bona fide required the shop for setting up his son in business. A reply to the aforesaid application was filed by the tenant mentioning therein that the landlord had available an alternative shop that had been vacated by Mangat Ram Sharma on 8th October, 2007 and, therefore, he could establish his son in business from that shop. It was also stated that another shop of which Thakur Jamuna mohan Ji Madan Gopal was the landlord which was said to be available with the tenant was not a shop but a small Kothari and could not be utilized for the purposes of doing business. This fact was denied by the landlord and even an affidavit of Mangat Ram Sharma was filed to show that the room vacated by him was in a dilapidated condition and could not be utilized for the purposes of a shop.

(2.) THE tenant then filed an application for issuance of a commission for inspection of the shop vacated by Mangat Ram Sharma and for inspection of the other shop said to available with the tenant. This application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on the ground that tenant was only delaying the proceedings of the case.

(3.) I have heard Sri Rahul Sahai learned Counsel for the petitioner and sri Ankur Goel learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord and have perused the material available on record.