B.N.Sapru, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition by Ajai Kumar Jain, landlord of premises no. 13/20, Chowk, Allahabad, which he purchased under a sale deed dated 29-9-1971 against his tenant, Ram Chandra Pathak.
(2.) AJAI Kumar Jain filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against Ram Chandra Pathak on the ground that AJAI Kumar Jain had his residential accommodation on the upper portion of the building while on the ground floor there were four shops including the one in the tenancy of Ram Chandra Pathak. One of the shops was in the possession of M/s. Gur Prasad Hira Lal. There was a staircase which goes through the shop in the tenancy of M/s. Gur Prasad Hira Lal to the residential premises of the petitioner. The petitioner asserts that during the business hours he could use the staircase but after the business hours after the shop is closed, he could not use it. The petitioner wanted a passage through the shop in the tenancy of the respondent to the first floor. The second ground on which the release was sought was that the petitioner wanted the shop for starting his own business. The respondent resisted the petition, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner was living in his joint family house, namely 26, Mahajani Tola, and hence the case set up by the petitioner that he needed it to have access to the residential portion of his building through the staircase set up by the petitioner, was false. It was further asserted that the so-called residential occupation was not, in fact, a residential accommodation at all but was a godown of M/s. Gur Prasad Hira Lal.
(3.) THERE is further controversy between the parties which has to be mentioned. THERE is a Firm M/s. Gur Prasad Hira Lal which was admittedly a joint family firm of which the head was Sri Hira Lal Jain and Sri Surendra Kumar Jain, Sri Ashok Kumar Jain and the petitioner, who were the sons of Sri Hira Lal Jain were partners. According to the petitioner, this firm was converted into a partnership in 1967. This was done by getting a partial partition of the family properties. House No. 26, Mahajani Tola, continued to be the joint family property but the business of M/s. Gur Prasad Hira Lal became a partnership firm. The petitioner became major on. 21-11-1971 and retired from the partnership firm while his father and his two brothers continued to be the members of the partnership firm. The petitioner now desired to start his own independent business in electrical goods, lanterns and other allied articles in the shop in dispute for which he needed the shop. In reply on behalf of the respondent, it was asserted that the transformation of joint Hindu family firm M/s. Gur Prasad Hira Lal into a registered partnership was illegal. It was also asserted that a Hindu joint family business had distinct heritable assets and is ancestral property. In other words, it was contended that the petitioner continued to have an interest in the firm M/s. Gur Prasad Hira Lal despite his withdrawal from the so-called partnership.;