Sudhir Narain - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order dated 22-2-1991 passed by VIII Additional District Judge, Meerut, respondent no. 1, allowing the appeal of respondent No. 3 and releasing the shop in question in favour of respondent No. 3 under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Runt and Eviction Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts are that respondent No. 3 filed an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on 22-1.2-1983 on the allegations that he is landlord of shop No. 2/577, Kotama Road, Patti Baru, Kasba Baraut, Meerut, and the petitioner is its tenant at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per year The shop was let out in the year 1965 when his sons were small. He has three sons, namely, Rajesh, Jinesh and Suresh aged about 25, 22 and 20 years respectively (at the time of filing the application). His eldest son Rajesh and the youngest son Suresh left their studies after getting education upto High School and Intermediate respectively and they were without any job or vocation. The landlord needs the disputed shop to engage his sons Rajesh and Suresh in the work of General Merchant in the disputed shop. The tenant, his mother and two brothers are members of joint family and they purchased a shop for Rs. 80,000/- on 14-12-1983 which is situated in front of the disputed shop. The petitioner has started his business in the aforesaid shop and the disputed shop is: lying vacant. The petitioner purchased a plot on 21-11-1983 for Rs. 16,000/- where he can construct a shop for carrying on business and would not suffer any hardship. The petitioner contested the release application and filed written statement. He denied that the shop in question was bona fide required by the landlord. The landlord was milk vendor and his eldest son Rajesh was assisting in his milk business and his second son was in a firm carrying on wholesale business of Red and White Cigarette. He never purchased any shop on 14-12-1983, but it was purchased by his brother who was separate from him. The landlord has in his possession a shop which was in the tenancy of Sukhmal Chand and a Dukariya which is on the back portion of the disputed shop. The landlord had filed an application in the year 1978 under section 21 of the Act almost on similar allegations which was rejected by the Prescribed Authority and finally affirmed in appeal on 15-5-1982. The parties led evidence before the Prescribed Authority. The Preseribed Authority rejected the application on the finding that the tenant shall suffer greater hardship in case the shop is released in favour of the landlord. The landlord filed an appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority before the learned District Judge, Meerut. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties filed additional evidence. The petitioner wanted to establish that during the pendency of the appeal Sukhmal Chand Jain vacated a shop and that was available to the landlord. Respondent No. I found that the sons of landlord were unemployed and they have no suitable alternative accommodation to carry on business and his need to establish his sons in She business in the disputed shop was bona fide and genuine and he would suffer greater hardship in case his release application is rejected. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) I have heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that respondent No. 3 had filed an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act against the petitioner to establish his sons in business in the disputed shop in the year i9/8 which was registered as P.A. Case No, 30 of 1978. The Prescribed Authority rejected the said application in the year 1980 and the said order was affirmed on 15 -5-1982 in appeal preferred by respondent No. 3 against the said order. In the earlier proceedings, a finding was recorded that the need of respondent No.. 3 was not bonafide and genuine and such finding operates as resjudicata and the second application on the same facts and ground was not maintainable.;