JAWAHIR Vs. VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the tenant has challenged the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and by the appellate Court in proceedings initiated under Section 21 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972.

(2.) THE landlady was originally a resident of Varanashi but on account of some circumstances, she along with her family shifted to Azamgarh where she owns a house having two shops. She made an application under Section 21 for release of the two shops as she intended to carry on business in one shop and also to establish her grand son who was unemployed in the other shop. Admittedly during the pendency of the application, one of the shops had fallen vacant and the landlady has started her business thereon. So far as the other shop is concerned, the proceedings continued and have finally terminated in favour of the landlady.

(3.) AS to the applicability of Rule 16(2), it may be stated that the length of occupation by the tenant is certainly one of the consideration to be taken into account but merely because the tenant has been carrying on business in the said shop since 1974 would not itself be a ground to deprive the landlady of her right to seek release of her shop. All that the appellate Court has said is that mere length of occupation is not a criteria to allow or disallow an application. In fact the rule requires certain factors to be taken into account before the application for release is allowed. The view expressed by this Court in 1980 ARC page 595 also supports this view.