- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and for the respondent caveator. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 30.9.2009 and 17.5.2010 by which both the Courts below have allowed the release application filed by the respondent landlord under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (herein after referred to as the 'Act').
(2.) The respondent landlord filed a release application as Rent Case No. 31 of 2007 against the petitioner tenants inter alia with the allegation that earlier their father Sardar Ram Singh was the owner and on his death by virtue of a Will they became owner and landlord of a shop situated in the ground floor of building No. 111A/12B G.R. Road, Kanpur where the petitioners were tenants at Rs. 500/- per month apart from taxes etc. It was further stated that they were running a auto mobile repair shop by the name of "Auto Repair Centre" but in view of a Government Notification, the entire business of auto repair of that area was shifted to Gadariapur and in view of forced shifting by the Government, the Kanpur Development Authority allotted a place at plot No. 375, block No. P & T, Scheme No. 1 in the factory area for shifting of their business. It was further averred that thereafter, one of the two partners namely Mohan Singh shifted to Delhi and established a Jewellery Shop at Karolbagh, New Delhi while Omkar Singh, the other partner starting running a tyre business alongwith his son in the name of "Sukhpal Tyres" in an acquired shop at 119/2 in Zakir Chowk in Kanpur and inducted his brother Jaswant Singh as a sub tenant in the disputed shop, though he was not a member of the family of the two tenants. It was further stated that the daughter-in-law of the tenant was running a boutique in the name of "Jassi Boutiqui" near Ratan Tal area in Kanpur while the son of the sub tenant was a Chartered Accountant and the sub tenant operates several trucks from the disputed shop. It was further pleaded that earlier Baljeet Singh and his family were dependant on his two brothers but due to family reasons, he has to be settled in his independent business for which the need of the disputed shop was both genuine and bona fide and in case his application is rejected, the landlord would suffer greater hardship, while the tenants already have sufficient accommodation for running of their business.
(3.) The petitioner tenants contested the release admitting his tenancy, but at Rs. 350/- per month and they went on to allege that Jaswant Singh was not a sub tenant but was doing his independent business from the disputed shop and that "Auto Repair Centre" was being run from the same place and they further denied allotment of the place in lieu of the disputed shop by the Kanpur Development Authority. It was further alleged that the landlords have three shops at 118/237 Indra Nagar at Gomti No. 5, apart from other premises. They denied that there was any bona fide or genuine need as Baljeet Singh was already engaged in business alongwith his brothers.;