SHANKER LAL AGARWAL Vs. D.J., ALIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M.D. Singh 'Shekhar', learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri S.C. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Divakar Rai Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 and perused the record. The petitioner Shanker Lal Agarwal own the building in question namely the shop having purchased the same in November, 1991. He filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of Act, 1972 (registered as U.P.U.B. Case No. 5 of 1992), for release of the said building which is under the tenancy of respondents No. 2 and 3. The application was allowed by Prescribed Authority vide order dated 4th January, 1997 whereagainst respondents No. 2 and 3 filed appeal i.e., U.P.U.B. Appeal No. 3 of 1997. The appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 9th April, 1999 and Prescribed Authority's order dated 4th January, 1997 was set aside by Appellate Court i.e., District Judge, Aligarh. It is this judgment which has caused the petitioner-landlord to approach this Court under Article 226/227 by filing the present writ petition assailing the aforesaid appellate order.

(2.) The respondent No. 3 is said to be proprietor of firm M/s. New Everlite Electrical Works which is running in the tenanted accommodation in question. A release application was filed on 7th January, 1992 on the ground that landlord wants the above accommodation for the benefit of his second son Ganesh Vishal who will start his business of electrical goods namely Televisions, Transistors etc. The building in which the shop in question is situated has several other shops also but they are/were all already occupied by various tenants. Therefore the landlord filed application for release of the shop in question, opting the same to get it vacated for his son.

(3.) The Appellate Court has reversed the order of Prescribed Authority on the ground that in the meantime the landlord Shanker Lal Agarwal got another shop which was in occupation of one Dr. Harish Raizada, released and vacated, which he intended to use for himself and his elder son Sarvesh Kumar for starting wholesale Khadi business but instead of commencing joint wholesale business, Sarvesh Kumar independently used some part of that shop for the purpose of running Khadi business and some part has been used as godown. Meaning thereby, the other part could have been used by the landlord for settling his second son and having not done so, the claim of the tenant in question that landlord's need is not genuine stands fortified.