NIRMALA JAIN Vs. YATENDRA KUMAR
LAWS(UTN)-2001-8-14
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (FROM: NAINITAL)
Decided on August 01,2001

NIRMALA JAIN Appellant
VERSUS
Yatendra Kumar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.C.JAIN,J. - (1.)THE petitioners are the tenants of a commercial accommodation and have prayed for the quashing of the judgment and order dated 20th June, 2001 passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Dehraun, in Rent Appeal No. 5 of 1999, whereby the application of the landlords/respondents under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of the shop in question in their favour has been allowed.
(2.)THE release application had been made by the landlords/respondents on the ground of bona fide need that it was required for settling Pravin Kumar S/o the landlord Yatendra Kumar in business of general merchandise. The application was opposed by the tenants/petitioners alleging that the need of the landlord for the disputed shop was not at all bona fide and that alternative accommodation had been available to the landlord. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application, but on appeal, the case of the landlord found favour with the Appellate Court. Consequently, the release application has been allowed.
I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case.

(3.)IT is argued by the petitioners/tenants that the landlord had only indicated a desire for the running of general merchandise business by his son Pravin Kumar, which did not tantamount to bona fide need. Further, the claim of the landlord has been sought to be defeated on these submission : There had been an agreement between the parties in 1975 whereby the rent of the shop had been increased and it was agreed that the landlord would not press for the release of the shop; another application for the release made by the landlord had been rejected due to non-prosecution and it was never sought to be restored by the landlords; in Suit No. 467 of 1978 another accommodation had been released in favour of the landlord which was let out to one Sri Kishan Gupta; another shop of the landlord let out to one Kachedu was let out to Bhojraj after Khachedu's death; yet another shop let out to Bhullan came in the occupation of the landlord after Bhullan's death and it was lying vacant; another shop was got released by the landlord from one Surendra Kumar Sethi on 8th April, 1999. Thus, on these premises it has been sought to be demonstrated that several other accommodations came to be available to the landlord which he utilised otherwise than in fixing up his son Praving Kumar in business.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.