AMIT KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. ABDUL HAI KHARADWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is an unfortunate litigation.

(2.) HAVING found that two sons of the landlady are unemployed and not engaged in any business, the Appellate Court held that the need of the land­lady, respondent No. 3, whose husband has died at young age and was carrying on the business of general provision in a rented shop and which she had to va­cate due to the pressure of the landlord of the said shop, is not bona fide within the meaning of section 21 (1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter to referred as the Act). What is the more disturbing is that the respondent-tenant has been found to have three shops newly constructed by him even then the release applica­tion was rejected as the Appellate Court was of the view that the respondent-tenant is well settled in the disputed tenanted shop and he would suffer greater hardship.

(3.) THE release of the said shop was sought for on the ground that the fam­ily has no source of livelihood due to closure of general merchant shop and her two sons (petitioners No. 1 and 2) are unemployed and not engaged in any busi­ness. The petitioner No. 2 has got training of wiring of electric motors. She will establish her sons therein. As regards the comparative hardship it was stated that the tenant has got his own shop at the shortest distance from the shop in dispute on the main road coming from Hospital crossing to Kaili Hospital in the name of his wife Smt. Jaibunnisa. He has got constructed three big shops be­sides the vacant piece of land. These shops are situate adjoining the road sur­rounded by other shops. The said area has commercial value. The tenant will not suffer any hardship as he can shift his business to any one of these shops owned by him in the name of his wife.