Decided on July 26,2012

NAND LAL Appellant
Prabash Chandra Respondents


HONBLE B.S.VERMA, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Lokpal Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.9.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kashipur (for short the Prescribed Authority) in Rent Case NO.
(3.) OF 2005, Prabhash Chandra Vs. Lalman Foolmali as well as the order dated 30 -5 -2012 passed by the District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Rent Control Appeal NO. 4 of 2007. By the order dated 28 -9 -2007, the application for release moved under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) moved by the respondent -landlord was allowed by the Prescribed Authority and by order dated 30.5.2012, the appeal preferred by the tenant -petitioner has been dismissed. 3. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition, in brief, as emerges out from the record are that the respondent -landlord Prabhash Chandra moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act for release of the shop in question before the Prescribed Authority alleging therein that he along with his brother Subhash Chandra is the landlord of the shop in question and four other shops adjoining to it and in the year 2004 on account of oral partition between them, the shop in question came to his exclusive share. According to the respondent, the petitioner continues to be a tenant in the said shop on monthly rental of Rs. 36/ - plus water tax @ 12% thereon. The petitioner has bona fide need for shop in question to settle his son Shobhit Kumar Agrawal in business. The respondent requested the petitioner to vacate the said shop time and again but no heed was paid to his request, hence the respondent served a notice dated 5/7 -9 -2005 upon the petitioner by registered post demanding arrears of rent and to vacate the shop in question. The petitioner paid the arrears of rent but did not vacate the shop in question. Ultimately, on the ground of bona fide need, the release application was moved before the Prescribed Authority. The petitioner -tenant resisted the application and filed his written statement and admitted that the respondent is the co -landlord and co -owner of the shop in question. The theory of oral partition is imaginary. The petitioner admitted the monthly rent but denied liability of water tax. The petitioner also denied the alleged bona fide need of the landlord -respondent and alleged that there are many other vacant shops in possession of the respondent. It was also claimed that the petitioner runs a tea restaurant in the shop in question, which is the only source of his livelihood. The petitioner has made sincere effort to search for an alternative shop but failed. It was also alleged that the balance of comparative hardship tilted in favour of the petitioner than the respondent.;

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