ABRAR AHMAD Vs. SHRI SUBHASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord has filed this petition to assail the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court under Section 22 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) by which the Appeal filed by the tenant has been allowed and the application filed by the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act for eviction of the tenant from the shop in dispute on the ground that he bona fide required it to establish his son in business was rejected.

(2.) The sole reason assigned by the Appellate Court for holding that the landlord did not bona fide require the shop in dispute is that during the pendency of the application filed by the landlord before the Prescribed Authority, an identical adjoining shop was vacated by another tenant and so the need of the landlord could be satisfied from the said shop.

(3.) Leaned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in fact, the landlord bona fide required the shop in dispute and that, in any case, in view of the decisions of this Court in Punit Kohli v. Vinod Kumar Jain and Ors. 2008(1) ARC 159 and in Shakuntala Devi Rathod (Smt.) v. Smt. Raj Kumari and Ors. 2008 (1) ARC 242 the tenant cannot dictate to the landlord the place from where the son of the landlord should establish his business.