LEKH RAJ SINDHI Vs. RAM LAKHAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th May, 1985 Annexure-4 to the writ petition passed by 5th Addl. District Judge, Gonda by which the order dated 15.12.1984 passed by the prescribed authority, releasing the shop in dispute in favour of the landlord petitioner has been set aside.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for the purpose of the present petition are that the petitioner who was working with Indian Railway on the post of Senior Clerk at Lucknow had let out the shop in dispute in the year 1978 for sometime to the opposite parties. His sons Chunni Lal and Vijay Kumar were also studying at that time but when he retired on 30th March, 1983 in order to supplement his meagre pension by doing some business in the said shop as also to establish his sons Chunni Lal aged 22 years and Vijay Kumar aged 20 years who were doing nothing after completing their education, he moved an application under Section 21 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for release of the disputed premises. It was stated in the said application that he has no otherplace for doing business for himself or to establish his unemployed son/sons because one shop owned by him is being used by his eldest son Santosh who runs a business in Biscuits and stationery : another shop owned by him is in the tenancy of one Subhagmal, who is his close relation and is doing business. Since petitioner's family consists of his wife, mother, three major sons, one being married and six minor children, therefore. his need for the shop in question is bona fide and genuine and if the shop in question is not released in his favour, then it will be very difficult for the applicant to meet the financial burden of maintaining such a big family and establishing his two unemployed sons who have attained majority and are capable of doing independent business. It was further averred fn the application that the petitioner since has received money on his retirement, therefore, he can very well afford to buy a Chakki and Expeller which can also be set up in the said disputed shop by using part of adjoining vacant land used as a passage. According to the petitioner the tenant who is occupying the disputed shop will not suffer any hardship if shop is released as he can conveniently shift his business to his own premises which are situated in the main market. The front room of his residential house can very well be used for this purpose.

(3.) This application for release was contested by the opposite parties by filing a written statement wherein the fact that the petitioner was a Railway employee and had retired from service has been admitted. The relationship of landlord and tenant has also been accepted including the fact that the petitioner is in good financial position. The rent of the shop in question was disputed and it was stated that the rent is only Rs. 150 per month and not Rs. 250 per month as stated in the application. He also denied that he ever made a promise when the petitioner would retire he shall vacate the premises. The fact of sons being unemployed too was denied. According to the tenant. Santosh Kumar already doing business of agency of biscuit and Chunni Lal was carrying on business in another shop under the name and style of 'Shanker Crockery Stores' where he keeps stationery also. Both the sons were therefore said to be duly established in business and were doing good business. Regarding Vijay Kumar it was alleged that he does the business of supplying bread, butter etc. to others and is earning very well. The house of the applicant-landlord, according to him, was a big house with ten rooms and there was some space lying vacant where the landlord-applicant can construct another shop. The fact of Subhag Mal real brother-in-law of the landlord, occupying another shop was denied. The tenant further pleaded in his written statement that landlord is a rich man and he can afford even to take another shop on rent somewhere else to set up business for himself or to establish his sons whereas he had no other place to shift his business. The application, according to him, was misconceived and same had been filed with a, view to get the rent of the shop enhanced exorbitantly.