RUKMUDDIN Vs. ABDUL NADEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the legality and validity of the order dated 24.1.2009, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 21, Gorakhpur in Rent Appeal No. 3 of 2008, the present writ petition has been filed by the tenants.

(2.) THE Court below, by the impugned order, has released only a part of the disputed shop in favour of the respondent landlord. As application for re lease under section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed on the allega tions that the respondent landlord is carrying on his business from a small shop having frontage of 4.5 ft. wherefrom he is selling cosmetics etc. He applied for release of 4 ft. further so that frontage may be increased to 8.5 ft. THE said re lease application was contested by the petitioners on the ground that the need of the landlord is not bonafide and genuine. THE Prescribed Authority, by the order dated 5.3.2008, dismissed the release application on the ground that if a part of the accommodation is released, tenants' business would be affected. THEre was a dispute as to whether the frontage of the petitioners' shop is 12 ft or 10 ft. THE Prescribed Authority took the view that if 4 ft. is released from the frontage, the shop in possession of the tenants would be reduced to 6 ft. which would be insufficient to carry on the business.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that he being the landlord is carrying on the business from a shop having only 4 ft. width, while according to the own showing of the petitioners, the width of their shop is at least 10 ft. Elaborating the arguments, he submits that if 4 ft. width is released, even then, the petitioners would be able to carry on their business.