- (1.) VIKRAM Nath, J. This petition has been filed by the landlord for quashing the judgment and order dated 27-7-1998, passed by the District Judge, Mainpuri, whereby the appeal of the tenant (respondent No. 2) was allowed and after setting aside the judgment of the Prescribed Authority dated 18-11-1997, the release application of the landlord-petitioner was rejected.
(2.) THE dispute relates to shop No. 3440, situate in Mohalla Chhapatti, District Mainpuri of which the petitioners are the owners and landlord and respondent No. 2, is the tenant at the rate of Rs. 65 per month carrying on shoe business. In the year 1981, the landlord 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), which was registered as Case No. 30 of 1981 setting up need for his eldest son Atul Kumar Jain as he was unemployed at that time. Subsequently, Atul Kumar Jain got temporary service in the education department and, therefore, the application for release i. e. Case No. 30 of 1981 was dismissed. After 11 years the present release application, was filed which was registered as P. A. Case No. 27 of 1993. This time as 3 younger sons who had by that time become major and were unemployed and not much educated therefore, the need was set up for them to start some business, in the shop in dispute. It was also alleged in the release application that the tenant did not have any need of the shop in dispute for the reason that the tenant who was already in occupation of another shop had handed over its possession to his son for carrying on business of jewellery and shoe separately. It was further alleged that the shop in dispute was closed most of the time as it was no longer being used by the tenant. On the other hand, it was alleged that the landlord did not have any other suitable accommodation in Mainpuri City where he could set up his sons for doing business. Further in paragraph 15 of the release application the landlord also gave details of various shops lying vacant in mohalla Chippati itself which the tenant could take on rent and set up his business. The respondent No. 2 contested the release application and alleged that the landlord did not have any need and it was only to dispossess the tenant and let it out on higher rent. It was further further alleged that the tenant did not have any other shop in his use and occupation. The landlord filed replication and also provided details of the shops in possession of the tenant being shop No. 2079 in Bizzen Market and shop No. 2109 in Mohalla Chhapatti, on which he was carrying on his business.
(3.) BOTH the parties led evidence in support of their cases. The Prescribed Authority vide judgment dated 18-11- 1997 came to the conclusion that the landlord bona fide required the premises in dispute and further that the landlord would suffer greater hardship in case the release application was rejected and accordingly allowed the release application and ordered for eviction of respondent No. 2. It further ordered that in case the landlord does not carry on any business in the shop in dispute, it would be open to the tenant to apply for restoration of possession of the shop. The tenant filed the appeal under Section 22 of the Act, which was registered as Misc. Appeal (Rent Appeal) No. 5 of 1997. The District Judge, Mainpuri vide judgment dated 27-7-1998 allowed the appeal of the tenant and after setting aside the judgment of the Prescribed Authority rejected the release application.;