S.P.Srivastava - (1.) BEING aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction). Act, 1972 (U. P. Act no. 13 of 1972) initiated by the father of the present petitioners praying for the release of the shop in building no. 33, Thatheri Bazar. Allahabad which had been rejected, the present petitioners have approached this Court seeking the quashing of the aforesaid orders.
(2.) THE facts, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of the present case are that an application praying for the release of the accommodation is dispute which was being utilised for business purposes by the tenant-respondent no. 3, since deceased, was filed by the father of the present petitioners asserting that the accommodation in dispute was required for the business purpose of M/s. Dakhlni Prasad Makhan Lal Agencies and M/s. Kallash Finance Company which were partnership business in which one or the other son and one or the other lady of the family of the original applicant were partners. It was asserted that the aforesaid two partnership businesses were being run for the time being from a room in the interior residential portion of house no, 33, Thatheri Bazar, Allahabad and to lack of space it was not possible to open show display and retail show-room of the above concerns. It was also asserted that M/s. Kailash Finance Company required an office-cum-visitors room and on account of lack of accommodation the business of the aforesaid two concerns was badly hampered and causing irreparable loss. THE landlord had assarted that the need for the accommodation in dispute was genuine, bonafide and pressing. It was also asserted that the tenant had a suitable alternative accommodation in the same vicinity where the building in question was situate and could shift his business without any difficulty. THE landlord further asserted that the hardship likely to be suffered by the tenant In the event of the grant of the release application would be much less as compared to the hardship likely to be suffered by the landlord in the event of the rejection of the application. The release application mentioned above was contested by the tenant respondeat en various grounds denying the allegations made by the landlord and asserting that a new firms for whom the accommodation In dispute was sought to be released hid been formed with a view to oust the tenant from the building in dispute in a malafide manner It was asserted that the alleged requirement for satisfying which the release ia question was sought was not at all bonafide or genuine. It was also asserted that the tenant was bound to suffer greater hardship in the event of the grant of the release as compared to the hardship likely to be suffered by the landlord in the event of the rejection of the release application. The Prescribed Authority after considering the evidence and materials on record came to the conclusion that the formation of the new partnership firms which were hardly one year old at the time of the presentation of the release application, indicated the possibility of the firms being created only to save income tax and sales tax and for making out a ground for eviction of the tenant from the disputed shop could not be ruled out. It also came to the conclusion that there was no need for creating another firm in the name and style of M/s. Dskhini Prasad Makhan Lal Agencies doing the same type of business which was being carried on by the father of the present petitioners in the name and style of M/s. Dakhlni Prasad Makhan Lal Agencies So far as the business run in the name and style of M/s Kallash Finance Company was concerned, the Prescribed Authority was of the view that it could easily be run from the back portion of house no 33, Thatheri Bazar and no shop was required for doing this business Accordingly the Prescribed Authority held that the ne?d set up by the landlord for the release of the accommodation did not appear to be genuine. The Prescribed Authority, while considering the question relating to the relative hardship's observed that whereas the landlord was not likely to suffer any hardship In the circumstances indicated above, the tenant was likely to suffer great hardship If he was asked to vacate the shop in dispute as he had no other suitable alternative accommodation where he could shift his stensils business.
(3.) THUS, coming to the conclusion that the need of the landlord was not genuine and greater hardship was likely to be caused to the tenant if the application was allowed the release application, filed by the landlord was rejected, Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of release application an appeal was filed challenging the same. During the pendency of the appeal, Sri Anant Behari Lal Gupta, the original landlord expired and the names of his three sons Prem Prakash Gupta, Satish Chandra Gupta and Vijai Prakash Gupta were substituted in his place.;