Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) The first writ petition has been filed by Jai Raj Agarwal, the tenant and the second writ petition has been filed by Bhola Nath Kapoor, the landlord. These writ petitions arise out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord Bhola Nath Kapoor against the tenant, Jai Raj Agarwal. Anil Agarwal and Sunil Agarwal were impleaded in the release application alongwith the tenant Jai Raj Agarwal on the ground that even though Anil Agarwal and Sunil Agarwal had got no concern with the tenancy still they were impleaded by way of abundant precaution as Anil Agarwal and Sunil Agarwal were real brothers of Jai Raj Agarwal. Sri Anil Agarwal is respondent No. 2 in both the writ petitions. Sunil Agarwal died during the pendency of proceedings and was substituted by Smt. Madhu Agarwal his widow who is respondent No. 3 in both the writ petitions. It is not disputed that Anil Agarwal and Smt. Madhu Agarwal have got no concern with the tenancy.
(2.) Property in dispute is a shop and the rate of rent is Rs. 337.50/-. According to para. 3 of the tenant's writ petition (first writ petition) "petitioner is doing business of selling cloths and has earned considerable goodwill. It is one of the premier shops dealing in cloth in Chowk Bazar."
(3.) The release application filed by Bhola Nath Kapoor landlord was registered as P.A. Case No. 58 of 1989 in which age of the landlord was shown to be about 60 years. In the release application, it was stated that landlord was employed in the University of Allahabad as Physical Instructor and had retired with effect from 30.6.1989; that landlord's family consisted of self, his wife and his adopted son Deepak Kapoor who was aged about 20 years; that as landlord had not completed 30 years of service hence he was getting meager pension; that landlord had borrowed against his provident fund during his service hence after retirement he would be getting only about Rs. 15,000/- as Provident Fund; that landlord intended to start business of cloth or readymade garments from the shop in dispute after retirement in order to have permanent source of income, simultaneously he wanted to settle his son in the business during his life time under his guidance and control. It was further pleaded in the release application that landlord belonged to business family having sufficient experience in cloth business and as he was keeping good health hence he could very well carry on business of cloths stitched or unstitched and that he had ready cash for the said purpose and he intended to sell the ornaments of his wife to launch the business.;