CHAUDHRY RAM Vs. THIRD ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.1.95 passed by the appellate authority reversing the order of the prescribed authority dated 16/2/1991 and releasing the premises in question for business purpose in favour of landlord, the tenant- Petitioner has now approached this Court for redress seeking quashing of the order of the appellate authority.

(2.) The dispute relates to a shop situated in main bazar Sarsawa,district Saharanpur which is under occupation of the petitioner as tenant. The landlords moved application for the release of the said shop under Section 21(1) (a) of U. P. Act No.XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The release of the shop was sought for settling Jagmohan, the third son of respondent no.2 in business who according to the landlords' case' was unemployed and was sitting idle and since no other suitable accommodation was available with the landlord their need of the shop in question was most genuine and pressing. The claim of the landlords was contested by the tenant-petitioner on the grounds that Jagmohan was not unemployed and the need shown was not bonafide; that the landlord has available with him some other accommodations wherein he could settle his son Jagmohan if at all he was to do so set up. Parties adduced evidence on affidavits before the Prescribed Authority who recorded a finding in favour of the landlords on the question of bonafide need to the effect that Jagmohan was unemployed and the claim of the landlord that the said son was to be set up in business was not unjustified. However, while considering the hardships of the parties the prescribed Authority recorded a finding that since the landlords have available with them shop no.410 and the same was lying vacant, the proposed business of Jagmohan could be started in the said shop. The prescribed Authority also recorded a finding that the tenant has earned a good-will and therefore, he would suffer a great hardship in the event of his being dislodged from the business of fertilizer and of agricultural equipment's which he was carrying in the shop in dispute for the last so many years.

(3.) In the appeal filed by the landlords, the appellate authority reversed the judgment and order of the prescribed authority specifically touching all the findings recorded by the prescribed authority. The appellate authority has affirmed the finding of the prescribed authority so far as it related to the question of need of the landlord's son Jagmohan. Both the courts below have thus found that Jagmohan was unemployed and his need to set up business of hardware was genuine and pressing. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out that this concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below is any awy erroneous and / or unjust.