Satya Poot Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by Sri Nar Singh Das Agarwal (hereinafter referred to as "the original petitioner -landlord") inter -alia, praying for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 12.5.1987 (Annexure -8 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1 and the judgment and order dated 27.9.1984 (Annexure -7 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 2. The dispute relates to a shop situated in Block No. 1 within the limits of Nagarpalika, Ballia, the details whereof have been given at the foot of the release application referred to hereinafter. The said shop has, hereinafter, been referred to as "the disputed shop". It appears that the original petitioner -landlord filed a release application under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short also referred to as "the Act") for the release of the disputed shop against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (collectively also referred to as "the tenants -respondents"). The said release application was registered as Release Case No. 137 of 1983.
(2.) IT was, inter -alia, alleged in the said release application filed by the original petitioner -landlord that the original petitioner -landlord was the owner of the house in question situated in Block No. 1 within the limits of Nagarpalika, Ballia which was shown by the numbers 1 -2 -3 -7 in the map annexed to the release application; and that late Damri Lal, father of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was occupying the disputed shop marked by numbers 1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 in the map annexed to the release application as tenant at the rate of Rs. 75/ - per month, and he used to carry on an ordinary cloth shop in the disputed shop; and that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Damri Lal; and that after the death of the said Damri Lal, the respondent No. 3 was doing ordinary cloth business in the disputed shop, while the respondent No. 4 who was the daughter of the said Damri Lal and was married and used to live with her husband in the District Azamgarh, was impleaded in the release application being necessary party. It was, inter -alia, further alleged in the said release application that the original petitioner -landlord had two sons, namely, Bate Krishna Agarwal and Vijai Kumar Agarwal, who had become adult; and that the elder son Bate Krishna Agarwal had appeared in M.Sc. Final Examination, and his education had come to an end and he was unemployed; and that the original petitioner -landlord bona fide required the disputed shop for settling his said elder son Bate Krishna Agarwal in business, and that the said elder son Bate Krishna Agarwal would carry on the business of Suiting, Shirtings, Sarees and Clothes etc. in the disputed shop. It was, inter -alia, further alleged in the said release application that in case, the disputed shop was not released in favour of the original petitioner -landlord for the business of his elder son, he would suffer great hardship, while the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 would not suffer any hardship in case of ejectment from the disputed shop. It was, inter -alia, further alleged in the said release application that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had a vacant shop situated in Chauk Gutri Bazar Road, Block No. 1 at a distance of 50 yards from the disputed shop. The boundaries of the said shop of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were also mentioned in paragraph 10 of the said release application. It was, inter -alia, further alleged in the said release application that the original petitioner -landlord had a shop wherein he himself used to carry on his business, and he had no other shop except the disputed shop for setting his son in business; and that it was necessary that the disputed shop be released in favour of the original petitioner -landlord for settling his son in business. A copy of the said release application has been filed as Annexure -1 to the writ petition. The said release application was contested by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who filed their written statement. A copy of the said written statement has been annexed as Annexure -2 to the writ petition.
(3.) IT was, inter -alia, alleged on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the said written statement that the original petitioner -landlord and his sons had a big house situated at Station Chauk Road adjacent to Chauk, wherein several shops could be established towards the road, and that no son of the original petitioner -landlord was unemployed; and that the original petitioner -landlord and all his sons were members of Joint Hindu Family, and their business and residence were joint; and that in the said house, a big business in the name of 'Saree Mahal' was running and that the licence of 'Saree Mahal' was in the joint names of the two sons of the original petitioner -landlord; and that the original petitioner -landlord and his two sons had shares in the said business (Saree Mahal), and the said business was conducted by the said two sons of the original petitioner -landlord with the help of other employees; and that the sons of the original petitioner -landlord were not unemployed; and that the original petitioner -landlord had no bona fide need for the disputed shop. It was, inter -alia, further alleged in the said written statement that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were in possession of the disputed shop for the last about 40 years since the time of their father Damri Lal; and that since the beginning the business of cloth was being carried on in the disputed shop, and the said business had been the only source of livelihood for the father of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, and their family; and that the business carried on by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the disputed shop had earned good -will; and that by shifting the business from the disputed shop to any other place, the said business would be ruined, and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 would not be left with any source of livelihood; and that in case comparative hardship was considered, the same was in favour of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It was, inter -alia, further alleged in the said written statement that the shop mentioned in paragraph 10 of the release application was not solely owned by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 but its owners also included Smt. Brij Rani Agarwal, Smt. Rameshwari Devi Agarwal, Sudhir Kumar Agarwal and Sunil Kumar Agarwal; and that the said shop measured 12 feet x 15 feet; and that the business in the name of Sudhir Kumar, Sunil Kumar was carried on in the said shop.;