- (1.) Heard Counsel for the parties. This petition is directed against concurrent judgments dated 12.9.2007 and 23.10.2008 by which the release application filed by the landlord on the ground of personal need has been allowed by both the Courts below.
(2.) Sri Sukh Ram Singh, plaintiff-landlord filed a release application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) which was registered as P.A. Case No. 8 of 2004, for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the disputed shop. It was inter alia alleged that he purchased the premises vide registered sale-deed dated 23.11.1960 from the erstwhile owner Chhedi Lal where earlier the father of the petitioner Late Siya Ram was a tenant and after his death, the petitioner became tenant at the rate of Rs. 270/- per month. When the shop was let, the family of the landlord was small and the sons were minor and unmarried but by passage of time, all have become major and are married and the three of the four sons are doing their own business while the fourth son namely Shyam Sunder was practising lawyer at the Court at Tehsil Tundla in district Firozabad but he has no chamber at Tundla for which the disputed premises was needed as the petitioner-tenant normally keeps the shop closed and can move to any other shop. During the pendency of the release application, Sri Sukh Ram Singh died and therefore was substituted by his son and wife. It was also pleaded that prior to his death, Sri Sukh Ram Singh had executed a will in favour of Shyam Sunder and therefore, after his death, he had become sole owner and landlord of the disputed premises.
(3.) The petitioner-tenant contested the application alleging that after the death of the original landlord, all his heirs had become joint landlord and therefore, application was not maintainable. It was further asserted that the landlord did not need the shop for his chamber and he has a big residential house where abundant space is available for his chamber and they have been utilizing the premises for sweet shop for the last about 30-35 years and they have no other accommodation to shift. Further, it was asserted that in fact Shyam Sunder was running a business of photostat machine in the Tehsil Compound and was only a registered advocate without, in fact, practising law.;