Sudhir Chandra Verma, J. - (1.) THE dispute relates to the release 13/1, Lakhi Bagh, Dehradun for which an application under Section 21(1)(2) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was filed by the landlord in P.A. Case No. 148 of 1984. The case set up in the release application was that the disputed property 13/1, Lakhi Bagh was purchased in the years 1975 over which the petitioner tenant along with his father was doing the business in the name of M/s. Batan Singh and Sons. After the death of Batan Singh, Ajit Singh the present tenant, continued to do the business and occupied the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 18/ - per month. The deceased -tenant Batan Singh was succeeded by his three married daughters. The landlord has required the disputed accommodation to start the Timber business for which he had sufficient experience as earlier he was doing the same business in partnership with M/s. Kartar Singh & Sons at 13, Lakhi Bagh, Dehradun, but on account of some dispute, the landlord had to dissociate from the partnership business. The landlord has one son and two daughters and they have no other place of business. On the other hand, it his been stated that the tenant, apart from the disputed accommodation, has got a plot of 11/2 bigha with shed at 10, Lakhi Bagh in the neighbourhood and there is another plot adjoining the disputed plot over which they have installed a Saw Mill, licence for which has been obtained in the name of his brother -in -law who resides at Punjab. Apart from these properties, the tenant has property at 57 -D. Tyagi Road measuring 1 acre open plot of land and another plot of land measuring 11/2 bighas at Dharampur, Dehradun. The tenant Ajit Singh for himself and on behalf of the firm M/s. Batan Singh and Sons initially contested these proceedings in which they admitted Sri Surjit Singh as the landlord of the accommodation 13/1, Lakhi Bagh Dehradun and also admitted that he alone is the tenant of the disputed property doing business and the married sisters had nothing to do with the business as also with the tenancy. The need of the landlord was denied and it has been stated that he is doing business along with his father and he does not at all need the disputed accommodation. The tenant further indicated that he has no other source of income except the business and he has to support his family of 7 members. The father of the petitioner had initially installed the Saw Mill in the year 1940 and since 1955 he is also doing the business along with his father on the disputed accommodation. The landlord has other properties one of which measuring 1/2 bigha is situate behind the disputed accommodation in the name of his brother Iqbal Singh and half of the property is recorded in the name of his mother. They have another property measuring 2 1/2 bighas in their possession adjoining the disputed property. As regards the property as 10, Lakhi Bagh it is being used for storing the Timber and a tin shed has been installed. The property at 16, Lakhi Bagh belongs to Gurdayal Singh over which his brother -in -law was doing the same business with licence in his name which has come to an end about 7 years back. The property at 57 -D, Tyagi Road measuring 18 Biswa is being used for agricultural purposes and this being in the residential locality cannot be used for Saw Mill business. The property at 10, Lakhi Bagh measuring 0.58 acre was in the ownership of one Sri Mushtaq Ahmad and Haji Ishtiyaq Ahmad. His father was the tenant which is now in possession of the tenant Ajit Singh. At present this property is in possession of one Satnam Singh. One -twelfth part of this property was sold by the District Magistrate in auction which was purchased by his father Batan Singh and after his death sale certificate was issued in the name of Ajit Singh but the possession of the property has not yet been delivered and a suit for partition being Suit 134 of 1977 is pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Dehradun.
(2.) IN the proceedings, the landlord has served 6 months' notice dated 9 -2 -1984 on the heirs of deceased Batan Singh. Even though notices were served on the married daughters they did not contest the proceedings before the prescribed Authority to set aside the ex -parte proceedings on the date when the judgment was being delivered which was rejected by open piece of land was let out to his father and he raised the construction in the shape of shed. The landlord, on the other hand, denied the aforesaid allegations and alleged that the son Ajit Singh has admitted that Surjit Singh is the landlord of the accommodation 13/1, Lakhi Bagh, Dehradun and it has also been admitted that he had purchased this property in 1976. Ajit Singh has also admitted that after the death of his father, he along was doing the business and the married daughter had no concern. It was contended that the tin shed was constructed by Batan Singh, and as in the rent receipts, rent for plot has been admitted, the disputed property can not be treated to be on accommodation liable to be released in proceedings under U.P. Act 13 of 1972.
(3.) IN dealing with this point, the learned II Addl. District Judge held that the admission of the tenant that the petitioner is the landlord of the disputed accommodation and the deposit of rent under Section 20 of the Act in Case No. 29 of 1976 was being made in respect of the disputed accommodation 13/1, Lakhi Bagh, Dehradun which consists of a tin shed 30' Ã - 20' and vacant land are very material. It has further been held that the mention of plot in rent receipt is not conclusive of the fact that open piece of land was let out. In fact the plot of land included the constructions the shape of tin shed, store and vacant land. The learned Judge had held that the son, Sri Ajit Singh has categorically admitted the Landlord -tenants relationship in respect of the disputed accommodation and he being the person who was doing business along with his father and letters became the tenant, his admission in this regards is relevant. Ajit Singh never objected that the accommodation let out was the prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority decided in favour of the landlord and released the accommodation after holding that the landlord has bona fide and genuine need and would be put to greater hardship in case the accommodation is not released.;