- (1.) S. P. Mehrotra, J. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. inter- alia, seeking quashing of the judgment and order dated 9-7-1985 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Jhansi Respondent No. 1) and the judgment and order, dated 25-8-1985 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Prescribed Authority. Jhansi (Respondent No. 2 ).
(2.) THE dispute relates to a shop, namely Shop No. 385, situate at Chamanganj. Sipri Bazar. Jhansi. THE said shop has hereinafter been referred to "the disputed shop". It appears that the Respondent No. 3 filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short "the Act") for the release of the disputed shop against Dr. Govardhan Das Agarwal, the original petitioner in the writ petition. The said release application was registered as Release Case No. 80 of 1982. It was, inter alia, alleged by the Respondent No. 3 in the release application that the Respondent No. 3 was the owner of the disputed shop, and the said Dr. Govardhan Das Agarwal was the tenant under the Respondent No. 3 at a monthly rent of Rs. 6; and that as a result of family settlement, the disputed shop fell to the share of the Respondent No. 3, and since then the Respondent No. 3 continued as the owner and landlord of the disputed shop. It was, inter-alia, further alleged by the Respondent No. 3 that the Respondent No. 3 with his family was residing in House No. 376 which was at the back of the disputed shop; and that the elder son of the Respondent No. 3 namely, Kailash Narain had passed B. A. M. S. examination, and wanted to open his Clinic; and that the Respondent No. 3 had no other shop excepting the disputed shop where the elder son of the Respondent No. 3 could open his Clinic. It was, inter-alia, further alleged by the Respondent No. 3 that the Respondent No. 3 had two other sons who were also unemployed, and for establishing them also in business, the Respondent No. 3 required the disputed shop. It was, inter-alia, further alleged that the said Dr. Govardhan Das Agarwal had become old, and he had opened his Clinic in his residential house; and that the said Dr. Govardhan Das Agarwal did not require the disputed shop. The said release application has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition.
(3.) THE said Dr. Govardhan Das Agarwal contested the release application and filed his written statement. It was, inter- alia, alleged by Dr. Govardhan Das Agarwal that shop Nos. 385 and 386, Chamanganj, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi were in the tenancy of the said Dr. Govardhan Das Agarwal at a monthly rent of Rs. 12, and he had taken the said shop Nos. 385 and 386 on rent from Sri Mool Chandra and Mannu Lal in the year 1927, and that the owner and landlord of the said shop were Mool Chandra and Mannu Lal; and that Mannu Lal and Mool Chandra had expired, and as the release application had not been filed on behalf of al the heirs of Mool Chandra and Mannu Lal, the same was not maintainable. It was, inter-alia, further alleged by Dr. Government Das Agarwal that he was the tenant of shop Nos. 385, 386 and as the release application had been filed only in respect of shop No. 385, the same was not maintainable. It was denied by Dr. Govardhan Das Agarwal that there was any family settlement or that shop No. 385 fell to the share of the Respondent No. 3. It was, inter-alia, further alleged by Dr. Govardhan Das Agarwal that he was running his Homeopathic Clinic in the disputed shop, and his son Kailash Narain was helping him in running the same. It was inter-alia, further alleged that Kailash Narain, son of the Respondent No. 3 was settled at Harpalpur, and he was not residing in Jhansi. A copy of the written statement has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The parties filed affidavits and various documents before the learned Prescribed Authority in support of their respective cases.;