R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 25.11.1997 passed by the appellate authority allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and order dated 30.8.1996 passed by the prescribed authority in the proceeding under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act.
(2.) The dispute relates to shop Nos. 5/23, 5/24. Nehru Nagar, Farrukhabad (hereinafter referred to as shop in dispute). The petitioner is a tenant of the shop in dispute and used to carry on "sarrafa" business in the said shop for last more than 40 years in the name and style of Firm Sundar Lal Ram Bharose and Company. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as contesting respondents) applied for release of the shop in dispute as according to them the said shop was needed for setting Prabhat Kumar son of Rajendra Prasad (respondent No. 2) in the business of sale of furniture and gift articles. It was stated that Prabhat Kumar completed his education in 1992 but since then he was Jobless and for that reason he was also not being married. It was pleaded that the petitioner No. 1 had an alternative accommodation in his possession at Lohai Road, Farrukhabad and could also acquire other shop, that need of the contesting respondents was bona fide and genuine. It was also pleaded that the contesting respondents were also willing to have shop at Lohai Road, Farrukhabad, owned by respondent No. 1 at the same rent at which the shop in dispute was let out to him if the same was offered to them by petitioner after getting it repaired. It was stated that the contesting respondents asked the petitioner to vacate the shop in dispute to which he did not agree. Plea of comparatively more hardship, in case the release application was rejected, was also taken. The petitioner No. 1 filed his written statement/objection on receipt of notice from the Court of prescribed authority admitting relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ; but controverting and denying the rest of the allegations made in the release application. It was pleaded that actually the shops in dispute, were two shops on the spot. One was let out at the rent of Rs. 30 per month and other at the rent of Rs. 93.75 per month, total Rs. 123.75 per month. Prabhat Kumar son of respondent No. 2 actually had no need for the shop in dispute as he was already engaged in the family business. It was also pleaded that alternative place for setting him in business was available to the landlords at Lohai Road as they had two shops on the said road Sarrafa bazar was the centre of sarrafa business and the shop in dispute was not fit for starting proposed business of furniture and gift articles. The said shop was also not big enough to start the said business. The petitioner had been carrying on sarrafa business in the shop in dispute for last 40 years. He with the consent of landlords made a show room to make the shop more attractive after spending sufficient amount of money. The said business was the only source of his livelihood. He has earned goodwill in the said business. His two sons also sit in the said shop and if he was uprooted from the said shop, he shall be ruined. It was also pleaded that Prabhat Kumar son of respondent No. 2 was carrying independently the business of general merchant in the name and style of Firm Sundar Lal Ram Bharose and Company which was situated on the first floor of their general store at Nehru Road. Even at Lohai Road the landlords used to carry on the business of brassware. They actually wanted to enhance the rent of the shop in dispute. In view of these facts there was absolutely no question of any hardship what to say of comparatively greater hardship to the landlords if their application was rejected. The release application was, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
(3.) In support of their cases the parties have produced evidence, oral and documentary. The prescribed authority after perusing the material on record recorded clear and categorical findings against the contesting respondents on the relevant questions involved in the case. It was held that the need of the landlords was neither bona fide nor genuine. They had two storied shop at Nehru Road and were engaged in family business of general merchandise. Pawan Kumar, the other son of respondent No. 2 also used to work at that shop. It was held that even at Lohai Road they had two ancestral shops in which they were also carrying on business. The shop in dispute was not fit for establishment of business of furniture and gift articles, as the said business requires a big and spacious shop, with show room and place to manufacture and repair furniture. The shop in question was smaller in size which was situated in sarrafa market and was fit for sarrafa business only in which petitioner No. 1 used to carry on business for last 40 years. It was also held that the landlords have owned three brick kilns and members of their family used to do and look after the said business. The prescribed authority also recorded clear and categorical finding that Prabhat Kumar also used to do business in the name and style of M/s. Sundar Lal Ganga Saran and Company. The prescribed authority also held that with a view to make out a case for release of the shop in dispute, during the pendency of the case, the landlords appear to have entered into a partition and also pretended to claim that one brick kiln was closed. Even on the question of comparative hardship, it was held that the landlords shall suffer absolutely no hardship if their application was rejected. On the other hand, if the petitioner No. 1 was uprooted from the shop in dispute, he shall be totally ruined as he had no alternative suitable place to shift his business. The shop situated at Lohai Road was also not found fit to shift the proposed business as there was no sarrafa shops at that place. After recording said findings by judgment and order dated 30.8.1996 the release application was rejected by the prescribed authority.;