YOGENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. SUSHMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Siddhartha Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant and Sri Rahul Sahai, advocate for the contesting respondents.

(2.) THE prayer in the instant writ petition is for quashing the judgment and order dated 29.1.2009, passed by the Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 10, Badaun in Rent Appeal No. 24 of 2006, Yogendra Kumar Agarwal v. Smt. Sushma Gupta preferred against the judgment and order in Rent Case No. 2 of 2002 dated 28.4.2006, passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Badaun. An application was filed by landlady for release of the disputed shop to settle her two sons namely Mohit and Rohit in business, under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred as the Act). THE application was filed by Smt. Sushma Devi wife of Rajendra Kumar Agarwal. THE petitioner filed objection to the said release application pleading that the shop in question was only source of his livelihood and he will face greater hardship than the applicant-respondent-landlord who has already 10 shops at the disposal at Bareilly from which the sons of the landlady can start their business. THE tenant-petitioner replied the objections and also affidavits which is part of the record. Evidence in form of affidavits were controverted by the landlady by filing counter-affidavits of herself, Rajendra Kumar, Prem Narain Gupta, Mohit Kumar and Giriraj Kishore Pandey. A Commission was issued by the Prescribed Authority on application 33-C and a report was called for from the Amin who submitted his report on 2.2.2004. Objection to the said report was also filed by the tenant. THE Prescribed Authority recorded its finding that the need of the landlady is bona fide and that she will suffer greater hardship in the event of refusal of release and allowed the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act vide judgment and order dated 28.4.2006 which is Annexure-13 to the writ petition.

(3.) SRI Rahul Sahai has disputed the arguments advanced by SRI Siddharth Verma specifically bringing to my notice that all the shops suggested and pointed out by the tenant which has come in the ownership of the landlady are all let out to the tenants and none of them are vacant and at the disposal of the landlady. It is settled law that the accommodations at the disposal of landlord which are in occupation of tenants cannot be taken into consideration while deciding a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act.