- (1.) The present writ petition has been filed by a landlord against an order passed under Section 22 of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 allowing the appeal and dismissing his application for release of the disputed accommodation under Section 21(1)(a) of the aforesaid Act. That Act is hereinafter referred to as the 'ACT'.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was moved by the petitioners alleging that the disputed premises were being utilised by them for business of denting and welding. That business was being done by one Prem Chand. Prem Chand died in 1965. On his death his father was employed by the petitioners or their father. The father of Prem Chand, Manu Lal was not a good worker and he was sought to be replaced. When he came to know of it, he took the papers relating to the business in his possession and claimed tenancy rights. That matter was contested between the parties and, ultimately, it was held that he was a tenant in the disputed accommodation and in this manner the petitioners lost the business as well as the accommodation. Both the petitioners were employed, one at Ghazipur and the other in Mines and Metrological Department, Jaipur. Their earnings were very small and their family was big. Consequently they wanted to start the business of welding and denting. The opposite party also occupied the premises which was just across the road and the present accommodation was lying vacant. A reply was filed by the respondents wherein they alleged that the petitioners' father was an old man and he could not carry on any business. The petitioners were both employed and their need was not bonafide.
(3.) The petitioners produced evidence in the shape of affidavits and copies of some of the documents to prove their bonafide need. They filed an affidavit which is Annexure '9' to the present petition and some other affidavits. Annexure '9' is the affidavit filed by Mani Ram Singh father of the petitioners. He has deposed that he was getting a pension of Rs. 25/65 p.m. alone. He had to marry his daughter and educate his son as well. He further pleaded that he had seven grand-sons and two grand-daughters. Son, Raj Kumar, was employed in C.T. Grade as a teacher and his pay was Rs. 285/- p.m. The other son Harish Chand was an assistant in the Mines Department and his pay was so megre that he had to leave his family to live with the father. It was further deposed that the opposite party had purchased a building in the same vicinity across the road in the name of their mother, Smt. Chabi Raji and had started a workshop. In paragraph 12 it was sworn that he was aged 75 years and his health was sound and he could supervise the work without any difficulty. The other affidavits were also filed to support that case of the petitioners. Besides that the petitioners filed a copy of the affidavit of Chabi Raji, the copy of which is filed as Annexure '4' to the writ petition; that affidavit was filed in a case against one Ram Narain for release of the accommodation in the house opposite to the disputed accommodation. In paragraph No. 9 of the affidavit, Smt. Chabi Raji had deposed that her husband, Mannu and her sons Radhey Shyam and Sita Ram were all members of a Joint Hindu Family. They were doing denting and welding work jointly and, therefore she had purchased the disputed property. The tenant was sought to be evicted for extension of that business.;