A.N.Verma, J. - (1.) -These are three connected writ petitions which are directed against an order passed by the learned District Judge, Agra disposing of three appeals under the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972). As the three appeals in question were disposed of by the learned District Judge by a common order, it would be convenient to deal with these connected writ petitions together.
(2.) The relevant facts are these:- Sri Ram Kishan Khandelwal and Sri Jai Kishan Khandelwal (petitioners in Writ Petition No. 8871 of 1978) are the owners and landlords of three shops comprised in premises No. 3/27 Pratappura, Agra. Sri Phool Chand Bansai (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8592 of 1978) Sri R. S. Rathore and Sri G. S. Bhatnagar are each tenants of these three shops. The landlords moved three applications against the aforesaid tenants for permission to file suits under Section 3 (1) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1947 (U. P. Act No. III of 1947). In these applications the case set up by the landlords was that Sri J. K. Khandelwal was working abroad on temporary educational assignments. He wanted to come back home and settle down in India with the intention of doing the business of printing and publishing in the premises comprised in the aforesaid three tenancies. It was alleged that the landlords therefore, bona fide needed the shops for their own use. It was further asserted that the property was old and dilapidated and would have to be renovated for rendering it fit for the business proposed to be started therein. In regard to each of the three tenants, the-landlord alleged that they no longer needed the shop in dispute, all of them being engaged elsewhere. On these assertions. it was said that the landlords' need was greater than that of the tenant.
(3.) Each of the three tenants contested the aforesaid applications. They denied that the need of the landlord was genuine. They asserted that Sri J. K. Khandelwal was permanently settled abroad and had no intention to come back and do business in India. As for themselves, each one of the three tenants asserted that the shop in his tenancy was being used by him and that he had no other alternative shop where he could-carry on his business.;