K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) -
(2.) THIS is a tenant's writ petition arising out of proceedings under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) and it has been directed against the judgment of the 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur, dated 5-9-1981 in Rent Appeal No. 337 of 1980 Bansbidbar Pal and three others v. Mohammad Yaqub. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the contesting opposite parties Banshidhar Pal and others wanted the release of the shop in occupation of the petitioner as tenant on the ground that Surya Prakash and Gyani Prakash have not taken interest in studies and they have stopped their studies, hence the necessity arose for setting them in a business, therefore, the contesting opposite parties needed the shop in occupation of the tenant-petitioner and filed an application ;for release of the shop under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The tenant-petitioner contested the claim of the contesting opposite parties on the allegations that the need of the landlord was not genuine and bonafide and that they wanted the shop only with a view to let out the same on enhanced rent and various other pleas were taken as is evident from Annexure I-A attached with the writ petition. It has been emphasized that the tenant-petitioner has been doing hair cutting business in the aforesaid shop and that the hair-cutting business is the only source of their livelihood. It was also suggested that the landlord had let out some other shop recently, hence the need of the landlord was not genuine and bonafide. It was also pleaded that the tenant-petitioner had a large number of dependents and that he was doing business in the shop in question since the year 19S4 and that if he was evicted it would work greater hardship upon the tenant petitioner.
(3.) THE prescribed authority in its order dated 9-9-1980 did not accept the claim of the landlord regarding the genuine and bonafide need of the shop in question and also found that the tenant-petitioner would suffer greater hardship in case of eviction. THErefore, be rejected the application of the landlord (see Annexure II attached with the writ petition). Aggrieved by the judgment of the prescribed authority, the landlord preferred an appeal which has been allowed by the appellate court through its judgment dated 5-9-1980.;