MEHENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition with the prayer to quash the orders dated 29.1.1991 and 22.5.193 passed by the respondents No. 2 and 1 respectively.

(2.) THE dispute relates to a non-residential accommodation in which the petitioner is tenant at the rate of Rs. 15 per month since before the said property was purchased by the landlady respondent No. 3 on 8.3.1982. After getting the requisite notice served upon the tenant, the landlady filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for the release of the said shop on the ground that the same was bona fide required by her as her husband Sumer Chand had no other shop for doing business and she wanted to get her husband carry on business in the said shop so that she could maintain herself and her family. The release application was contested by the petitioner-tenant inter alia on the grounds that there were a number of shops with the landlady wherein she could set up business if at all it was to be set up. As a matter of fact her husband was already engaged in business. The landlady in her reply stated that all the shops as were pointed out by the tenant, were in occupation of her adult sons wherein they were doing their own independent business and excepting the shop in dispute she did not possess any vacant shop so as to set up her husband in the intended business.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that since Sumer Chand, the husband of the landlady has died during the pendency of the writ petition, the need shown in the release application has extinguished and the landlady herself is too old to run any business and as per her own admission all her sons are doing separate business and therefore, on account of these subsequent events the release application is liable to be rejected. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein the fact of death of Sumer Chand has been alleged. The factum of death of Sumer Chand is not disputed. However, it has been stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the landlady that since her grand sons have grown up, she would do business in the shop in question with their help. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this plea of the landlady cannot be accepted as it was the specific case of the landlady before the authorities below that her all four sons have separated themselves from her and were doing their own independent business. Therefore, in such circumstances the need of grand sons cannot be looked into. Learned counsel for the landlady- respondent, however, argued that the events happening after the decision of appeal cannot be looked into as a finality is attached to the orders passed under Section 22 of the Act and in any view of the matter the personal need of the landlady of getting business done with the help of her grand sons has not at all been affected with the death of her husband.