MANGAL NANDA Vs. RAJESH GANGWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the tenant assailing the order passed in appeal dated 09.10.2018 whereby the appellate court has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-landlords and has released the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner as the same was bonafidely required by the respondent-landlords.

(2.) The respondent-landlords filed a release application against the petitioner under Sec. 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (for short 'the Act') in respect of one of the shops in building no. 126/120, block-13, Govind Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, New No. 126N/13/14-A, Govind Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The said building, according to the case set up in the release application had 5 shops on the ground floor. It was alleged that in one of the shops, wife of applicant no. 2, Kanhaiya Lal was running a medical store. In another shop, applicant no. 2 who is Ayurvedic Doctor was having his clinic. The other 3 shops were in tenancy of three different tenants, one amongst them being the petitioner herein. It was also asserted in the release application that in respect of the other two shops also release applications were being filed. The respondent-landlords had set up the need of applicant no. 1 Rajesh Gangwani in respect of one of the shops alleging that he was earlier doing business of selling fruits but the mandi has been shifted to Chakarpur which is 20 kilometer away from Kanpur city. He could not get any suitable shop, therefore one of the shops was required by him for starting his business. It was also asserted that his family comprised of himself, his wife, a son and two daughters and he was not having any source of income to support his family.

(3.) It was further asserted that applicant no. 3 Vijay Kumar who was unmarried at the relevant time was also not having any business. He also intends to start his independent business in one of the shops. The third need set up in the release application was for Devansh son of applicant no.2 Kanhaiya Lal. It was asserted that he was assisting his mother in running the medical store but now he wants to engage himself in independent business. It was also asserted that he was of marriageable age and would therefore require an independent business of his own to earn his livelihood.