RAJ PAL Vs. SPECIAL JUDGE (E.C. ACT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.2.1984, Annexure 10 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No. 1. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows:

(2.) AMAR Chand, respondent No. 2 is the landlord of a shop situate in the main market in town Etah, District Etah. The petitioner is a tenant of the shop in dispute at the monthly rent of Rs. 30 per month. An application was moved by respondent No. 2 under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of the premises before the Prescribed Authority, Etah, Annexure 3 to the writ petition. It was alleged in the application that about one year before there had been a partition of the properties between his brothers and father and the disputed shop had been given in the share of Respondent No. 2; that prior to that, the entire properties and the business were joint; that after the partition, Respondent No. 2 has not left any business and sitting idle in his house; that Respondent No. 2 has experience of Arhat business of grains and therefore, he wants to start the business of Arhat in the disputed shop, which is suitable for the purpose; that in the partition ten shops were given in the share of Respondent No. 2, out of which eight shops are in the tenancy of the tenants. There are two other shops, which are vacant but they are small and unfit for Arhat business. It is further pleaded that Respondent No. 2 had sufficient means to start the business of Arhat and had experience for the same.

(3.) THE tenant -petitioner contested the application with the allegations that the alleged partition is fictitious and is a sham transaction made in order to device means to dispossess the petitioner from the disputed shop; that prior to the suit for partition, Rajendra Prasad, father of respondent No. 2 moved an application for permission to the file a suit for ejectment against petitioner before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947 on the ground that his sons intend to start the business in the said shop; that application was rejected on 9.7.1965 and thereafter the said Rajendra Prasad filed a revision before the Commissioner, which was also rejected on 2.10.1965; that thereafter a forged document was prepared to get the disputed shop vacated. It is further pleaded that there was no partition of the business and respondent No. 2 is still engaged in the business alongwith his father and brothers; that the alleged need has been created and there is no bona fide need.