KULDEEP KUMAR Vs. IXTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MORADABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 20-7-1995 passed by respondent No. 1 al lowing the appeal and releasing the dis puted shop in favour of the landlord-respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that respon dent No. 2 is landlord of the shop in ques tion of which the petitioner is tenant. THE property in dispute was purchased on 19-12-1983 in the name of respondent No. 2 when he was minor. He became major in the year 1987. On 5-8-1991 a notice was given to the petitioner to vacate the dis puted shop as it was needed for respondent No. 2 to carry on the business. THE petitioner did not vacate the shop in ques tion. On 16-2-1992 respondent No. 2 filed application under Section 21 (l) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (In short the Act) with the allegation that the disputed shop was required by respondent No. 2 for carrying on business. He was aged about 23 years and had no shop to carry on the business. It was purchased by father of respondent No. 2 in the year 1983 when he was minor with the expectation that when he will become major, he will get the shop in question to carry on the business. THE petitioner contested the application. It was stated that father of respondent No. 2 is carrying on Halwai business in another shop. THE tenant-petitioner is also carry ing on the Halwai business. THE applica tion has been filed because of business rivalry. It was further pointed out that there are other shops of the family of respondent No. 2 where the landlord-respondent No. 2 can carry on the busi ness. It was further alleged that respon dent No. 2 is, in fact, carrying on Halwai business with his father. THE prescribed authority rejected the application by its order dated 15-4-1993 on the ground that the need of respondent No. 2 is not bona fide. Respondent No. 2 filed appeal against this order. THE appellate authority respon dent No. 1 has allowed the appeal vide impugned order dated 20-7-1995 reversing the finding of the prescribed authority and holding that the need of respondent No. 2 is bona fide and genuine. On comparative hardship it was found that in case the ap plication is rejected, respondent No. 2 would suffer greater hardship.

(3.) THE petitioner has filed a sup plementary affidavit dated 1st December, 1998 at the time of hearing of the petition. In none of the paragraphs it has been shown that respondent No. 2 has pur chased any property in his own name. He refers to other properties alleged to be in the name of other brothers of respondent No. 2. THEy were already considered by the appellate authority. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit it has been stated that father of respondent No. 2 has purchased a big property in the name of his son in Mohalla THEr. THE petitioner has not filed any copy of the sale deed, it has not been shown that the property so purchased is shop where respondent No. 2 can carry on the busi ness.