BALDEV SINGH Vs. IIIRD ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE ETAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of respondent No. 1 whereby he allowed the appeal filed by the landlord-respondent No. 2 and released the shop in question in his favour under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (In short the Act).

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that respondent No. 2 filed release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act against the petitioner for release of the shop in dispute on the ground that he retired as Principal of the college and the pension which he was receiving was not sufficient to meet his requirements. He wants to carry on the business of general merchandise in the shop in question to augment his income. The application was contested by the petitioner denying that the need of respondent No. 2 is bona fide. He has huge property in Kasganj and gets substantial amount of money as rent from the aforesaid property besides his pension etc. It was further stated that respondent No. 2 had let out a shop situated in Kasganj to one Purshottam in the year 1981 without any allotment order and that should be deemed as vacant. He had further let out another shop to one Musrat Hussain and after his retirement one shop to Hari Singh without any allotment and the same is also available to the landlord. The prescribed authority rejected the said application on 13.10.1984 on the finding that the need of the landlord was not bona fide. Respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal and it has been allowed by respondent No. 1 on 12.2.1989 and the shop in question has been released in his favour.

(3.) I have heard Sri Vipin Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. N. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent. He made statement that he does not propose to file counter-affidavit in the petition and it may be decided on merits.