- (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/tenant Shri Nizamuddin Khan (since deceased) challenging the judgment and order dated 23.1.1996 (wrongly written in the petition as 22.1.1996) passed by the than IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bahraich in Rent Appeal No. 28 of 1992 : Nizamuddin Khan v. Shivendra Kumar and others as contained in Annexure No. 6 o the writ petition upholding the judgment and order dated 10.2.1992 (wrongly written as 10.2.1995 in the petition) passed by the Prescribed Authority/Munsif, Bahraich in P.A. Case No. 9 of 1983 : Smt. Saubhagyawati Devi (since deceased) v. Shri Nizamuddin Khan and others as contained in Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. The relevant facts in brief, for determination of this writ petition are that Smt. Saubhagyawati Devi, landlord of the shop in question had preferred an application under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) 'Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against Shri Nizamuddin Khan for the release of the shop in question on the ground that the same is required after demolition and new construction for setting up her grand son Shri Dhananjaya Kumar Agarwal.
(2.) During the pendency of the said application, Smt. Saubhagyawati Devi died and in her place, Shivendra Kumar, Dhananjaya Kumar and Dhirendra Kumar were substituted as her legal representatives, who also prosecuted the release application on the basis of the need of Shri Dhananjaya Kumar Agarwal and adopted the pleadings of Smt. Saubhagyawati Devi of the aforesaid P.A. Case with consequent amendment.
(3.) The release application was contested by tenant Shri Nizamuddin Khan before the learned prescribed authority. It was stated by Shri Nizamuddin Khan that Shri Dhananjaya Kumar Agarwal is the grand-son of Smt. Saubhagyawati Devi and as such he is not a member of her family and release application for the need of a grand-son is not maintainable. It was further stated in the written statement that the need of Shri Dhananjaya Kumar Agarwal is neither bona fide nor genuine and the factum of comparative hardship also does not lie in his favour, as Shri Dhananjaya Kumar Agarwal has big business of Dal Mill, whole sale business of grains and has also several other shops and he can start business in those shops also and the release application is liable to be dismissed. During the pendency of the proceeding certain facts that some shops were got vacated and certain were constructed were also brought on record as subsequent events.;