VIRENDRA KUMAR ARYA Vs. MADHUBALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated 2.7.2018, this Court had deemed service on the respondent. The case is now listed today again for admission and is being disposed of at this stage itself.

(2.) The father of the petitioners late Rajendra Arya filed an application under Sec. 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for release of the shop/premises in question and had set up the need of his grand-son, who had completed his medical studies, for the purpose of opening a clinic/nursing home. This application was filed on 4.8.2008 which was allowed on 21.9.2013. The respondent-tenant went in appeal and the Appellate Court when remanded the matter by its order dated 27.11.2017, the instant writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after the release application was filed by the father of the petitioners for setting-up his grand-son Dr. Parimohan, there was a genuine and bonafide need of the father of the petitioners, inasmuch as he wanted to settle his grand-son, who was the son of petitioner no.1. In the application for release, it was clearly stated that the tenant, to whom the premises was rented out in 1984, had died. The shop was an old one and was not being used by the heirs of the erstwhile tenant for any purpose whatsoever and, therefore, the hardship which the tenants would face if the shop was vacated, would be negligible.