- (1.) S. P. Mehrotra, J. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 8-8-1988 (Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1 and the judgment and order dated 7-6-1986 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 2.
(2.) THE dispute relates to a shop No. 6/906/1 situated in Mohalla Khumran Saharanpur. THE said shop has hereinafter been referred to as "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 against the petitioners for the release of the disputed shop. The said release application was registered as PA Case No. 113 of 1984. It was, inter alia alleged in the said release application that the house No. 6/906 situated in Mohalla Khumran, Saharanpur and certain other properties were the joint family property, and that as a result of settlement amongst the members of the family, the said house No. 6/906 fell in the share ("kura") of the respondent No. 3, and that the disputed shop was a part of the said house No. 6/906, and that Late Noor Ahmad, ancestor of the petitioners was a tenant in the disputed shop since the time of Nand Kishore father of the respondent No. 3 and that the said Noor Ahmad, who was fully aware of the said family settlement accepted the respondent No. 3 as the sole landlord of the disputed shop, and began to pay rent to the respondent No. 3 in respect of the disputed shop, and that the monthly rent of the disputed shop at the time same came in the "kura" of the respondent No. 3 was Rs. 4. 97 and that after the death of the said Noor Ahmad, his heirs and legal representatives (petitioners in the present writ petition) were tenant in the disputed shop at the monthly (rent of) Rs. 4. 97. It was, inter alia, further alleged in the said release application that the respondent No. 3 had four sons and two daughters in his family, and that the eldest son of the respondent No. 3, Krishna Gopal was married, and he had three daughters and he was employed in State Bank of India, Saharanpur and that the second son of the respondent No. 3, Arun Kumar was also married and he had two daughters, and he was employed in Union Bank of India, Kanhiya Lal Market Branch, Saharanpur. It was, inter alia, further alleged in the said release application that the third son of the respondent No. 3, Anil Kumar had passed Chartered Accountancy Examination in the year 1984, and the said Anil Kumar had also obtained licence for practising the said profession from the concerned department in November, 1984. It was, inter alia further alleged in the said release application that the youngest son of the respondent No. 3, Sunil Kumar was employed in State Bank of India, Railway Road Branch, Saharanpur and that the daughters of the respondent No. 3 had already been married, and that unfortunately one daughter of the respondent No. 3 Nisha Devi had expired leaving behind three children.
(3.) IT was, inter alia further alleged in the said release application that the said Anil Kumar, who had passed Chartered Accountancy Examination and had also obtained licence for practice, wanted to start his own profession of Chartered Accountancy, for which the respondent No. 3 had no other property in his possession where the said Anil Kumar could start his profession of Chartered Accountancy and that the disputed shop was fully suitable for the said purpose, and that considering the dimensions of the disputed shop also, the same was fully suitable for the said purpose and that the disputed shop was required by the respondent No. 3 for establishing the said Anil Kumar could establish his office etc. in the disputed shop for carrying on the practice as Chartered Accountant, and that the said Anil Kumar was fully competent to carry on the said profession of Chartered Accountancy, and that the respondent No. 3 had means to meet the expenditure involved in establishing office etc. and that the need of the respondent No. 3 was real bona fide and pressing. It was, inter alia further alleged in the said release application that the petitioners had no need for the disputed shop, and that the said Noor Ahmad in his life time used to carry on ordinary business of general merchant, and that 3-4 months before his death, the said Noor Ahmad fell ill and the disputed shop remained closed, and that after the death of the said Noor Ahmad also, the disputed shop remained closed, and no business was being done in the disputed shop, and that from the view point of comparative hardship, none of the petitioners would have suffered any hardship, in case of ejectment from the disputed shop, while in case of rejection of the said Anil Kumar, whose entire future, was before him, and who had passed Chartered Accountancy Examination with great labour and sincerity, would remain jobless, and his entire future would be ruined. A copy of the said release application has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.;