Sudhir Narain - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 9-11-1993 passed by respondent no. I rejecdmg the application to serve interrogatories on respondent no. 2 to submit reply to those interrogatories.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is tenant of a portion of permises No. 16/18, Vivekanand Marg, Allahabad and is carrying on business of sale of bicycles in the name and style of 'Triveni Cycle Company'. THE landlady, respondent no. 2, filed application under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the petitioner on the allegation that she was carrying on business in the name and style of 'Roxy Hotel' in the first and second floors of the building in dispute. THE aforesaid portion has fallen to the share of other co-sharers under the family settlement and they had applied for the release of the aforesaid portion. During the pendency of the proceedings, the co-sharers, Rajendra Kumar and Kamal Kumar, filed Case No 139 of 1982 for release of the portion in possession of respondent no. 2. The said application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 30-3-1984. The appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the appellate authority on 22-5-1985. Respondent no. 2 filed writ petition in the High Court and the case was remanded but after remand the appeal was again dismissed on 18th September, 1985 and thereafter Rajendra Kumar and Kamal Kumar had taken possession of two rooms and verandah situate on the first floor of the disputed building. Kali Charan Gupta, another co sharer, had filed application under section 21 of the Act against respondent no. 2 and her son which was registered as Case No. 54 of 1982. The application was allowed on 30 8-1984 and the appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the appellate court. Against the said order, the writ petition No. 4993 of 1986 filed by respondent no. 2 was also dismissed by the High Court on 24th August, 1986 Kali Charan Gupta had taken possession of the rooms situate on the second floor of the building The business, which the landlady was carrying on in the name of Roxy Hotel, was totally closed.
(3.) RESPONDENT no 2 claims that her family consists of her son Kamal Naresh, her daughter-in-law. two grand-daughters and one grandson. They will open a shop of readymade garments and Kirana in the disputed shop and their need is bona fide. The application was opposed by the petitioner on the allegation that respondent no. 2 was carrying on business of hotel in the name of 'Roxy Hotel'. The family settlement was collusive and the plea of setting up Kamal Naresh in the business of ready made garments was also false. The petitioner will suffer a greater hardship in case the disputed shop is released in favour of respondent no. 2.;