CHAND GUPTA Vs. XVIII A D J MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Gupta, J. This is tenant's peti tion for quashing the orders dated 13-11-1997 and dated 21-4-1998 passed by the respondents No. 2 and 1 respectively whereby the release application moved by the landlord- respondent No. 3 under Sec tion 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the 'act', has been allowed.

(2.) THE dispute relates to a shop situate in Gandhi Bazar Kasha Baghpat. (now a separate District), whose boun daries were given in the release applica tion. THE landlord applied for the release of the disputed shop with the allegations that in order to extend his business and to augment his income for meeting out the requirements of his family and his children the necessity of setting up busi ness of ready-made garments has arisen because the Ice Factory owned by him was not yielding sufficient income on account of the same being a seasonal business in summer season only and since he has no other suitable accommodation with him, v s need for the disputed shop was most genuine, bona fide and pressing. It was further pleaded that the tenant-petitioner was in no need of the shop in question. THE landlord's claim was contested by the petitioner inter alia on the grounds that Naresh Chand Jain, the elder brother of the landlord was a Bachelor and Irving jointly with the landlord and they were having huge income to the tune of Rs. 5,000 per day from a Cinema Hall known as 'monica THEatre' ; that from the Ice Factory the earning of the landlord was about Rs. 9,00,000 per annum; that he has also established 'mayur Oil Mill' near the bus stand which was being run in the names of Smt. Rekha Jain the wife of the landlord, Smt. Manju Jain wife of the brother of the landlord and Sanjay Kumar Jain and the share of landlord's wife from the said business comes to about Rs. 12,00,000 per annum. According to the petitioner the total income of the landlord was about Rs. 28,00,000 per annum. THE petitioner further pleaded that the landlord has available with him a vacant shop at Meerut Baghpat Road which he could use if in fact he wanted to set up the desired business of ready-made garments. Petitioner's further case was, that he has been running the business of grocery in the disputed shop for the last 25 years in the name of M/s Shankar Lal Shri Chand and he did not have any other shop to shift the said business. THE landlord refuted the tenant's allegations and it was stated by him that he was having no share in the income from 'monica THEatre' as the same had fallen in the exclusive share of Naresh Chand Jain in a family partition and the said brother was living separately; that his total income including his wife's income is Rs. 1. 25. lacs per annum only whereas the expenses which he was incur ring on the education of his children were more than Rs. 1. 00 lac per annum. With regard to the availability of shop near Baghpat Meerut Road, it was stated by the landlord that it was not a shop but only a godown and being situated far away from the market area and township was not suitable to the landlord for the proposed business.

(3.) SRI S. K. Garg, learned Counsel for the petitioner challenged the concurrent findings of fact of the authorities below as perverse, arbitrary and based on non-con sideration of important aspects of the case. It was urged by him that when the landlord based his claim that he needed the shop in question to augment his income the bur den to establish that his income was not sufficient to meet out the expenses of his family laid heavily upon the landlord, yet in the present case the landlord withheld the account books of the businesses run by him and his wife. It was submitted that the landlord possessed extensive properties and was having huge income and the al leged need as set up by the landlord in his application for establishing the business of ready-made garments in the shop in ques tion was only imaginary and illusory. Learned Counsel for the respondents-land- lord SRI N. K. Dwivedi, on the other hand submitted that this Court in its writ jurisdiction has a limited scope and the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the authorities below are not liable to be inter fered with.