RADHEY SHYAM Vs. 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BULANDSHAHR AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1980-2-102
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on February 13,1980

RADHEY SHYAM Appellant
VERSUS
4Th Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.N.Varma, J. - (1.) This is a petition by a landlord of a shop, of which respondents - Nos. 2 and 3 are the tenants. It is directed against an order passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr dated 29-8-1978 allowing an appeal filed by the-said respondents and rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for the release of the shop in his favour.
(2.) These are the relevant facts. The petitioner filed an application 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- hereinafter referred to as the-Act) for the release of the shop in dispute which is situate in Mohalla Grouse Ganj, Bulandshahr. In the application, the petitioner asserted that he has no-other shop except the one in dispute which he purchased on 5-3-1974 for a sum of Rs. 20,000 for the needs of the family. The petitioners family, besides himself and his wife, consists of four sons and three daughters. The eldest son Sheo Shankar had done hopelessly in studies and was entirely unfit for being employed anywhere. However, he has shown inclination towards business. The-petitioner has, therefore, decided that Sheo Shanker should start kirana business.
(3.) The petitioner himself is carrying on cloth business in partnership with others in a shop which has been taken on rent by one of the partners. The petitioner has no other shop where he could engage his son in business. As for the tenant, he is running a flour mill and an oil expeller in the shop in dispute-which he could easily shift to various other shops which are available in the-same town in business localities. The petitioner thus bona fide required the-shop in dispute and the hardship which he was likely to suffer, if the application for release was dismissed, would be Much greater than that likely to be suffered by the tenant in case the application was allowed.;


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