AJAY PRAKASH AGRAWAL Vs. URMILA AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter taken up in revised call. Counsel for the petitioner is present. None is present for the respondent.

(2.) The instant petition is directed against the orders dated 16.7.2011 and 20.8.2011 passed by the Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No.3 of 2007 disposing of applications filed by the petitioner-landlord seeking amendment in the release application. By the first order dated 16.7.2011, the amendment application has been allowed in part. By the second order dated 20.8.2011, another application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in the release application has been rejected.

(3.) The proceedings arises out of a release application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (for short 'the Act') setting up personal need for the shop in dispute in the tenancy of the respondent. According to the case set up in the release application, the petitioner became owner and landlord of the shop in dispute on basis of a sale deed dated 2.11.1987 executed by Kumod Agarwal son of Om Prakash Agarwal. The disputed shop came to the share of Kumod Agarwal in a family settlement. It was alleged that the shop in dispute is required for business purpose by the petitioner and members of his family as the petitioner is doing business from a rented garage. The release application was contested by the respondent-tenant by filing a written statement in which she did not dispute that originally the shop belonged to the joint family. It was taken on rent in the life time of her husband Late Dr. Surendra Prakash Agarwal, who was running his clinic from the said shop. It is alleged that other members of the joint hindu family who were co-owners and landlords having not been impleaded, the release application filed by petitioner alone is not maintainable. She also alleged that she had purchased the disputed shop from one of the members of the joint hindu family viz. Manju Rani D/o Om Prakash Agrawal by sale deed dated 15.1.1983 and accordingly became co-sharer in the joint family property. She has been running her clinic in the disputed shop as a tenant. She alleged that without her consent, there could have been no family settlement, nor the disputed shop could have been sold to the petitioner by sale deed dated 2.11.1987.