Mukteshwar Prasad, J. - (1.) THIS petition by tenants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and orders dated 2.3.1994 (Annexure -14) and order dated 23.12.1991 (Annexure -7) to the writ petition passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. In brief, the facts giving rise to this petition are as under: It appears that one Pritam Lal claiming himself to be the landlord of the shop in question filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on 4.4.1988 for release of the shop after eviction of the tenants. Pritam Lal died on 24.4.1988 during pendency of the application before the Prescribed Authority and his wife, son and daughter were brought on record as his legal representatives. It was alleged that late Pritam Lal purchased the disputed shop through a registered sale deed dated 2.4.1985 executed by Kunwar Hari Raj Singh. The opposite party No. 1 (Din Dayal) as tenant of the shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 8.25 P. He sublet the shop to opposite party No. 2 (Jai Singh) about three years back and as such, Pritam Lal v. Din Dayal and others SCC Suit No. 23/85, was filed. After death of Pritam Lal, his widow, son and daughter become co -landlords of the shop in question. Late Pritam Lal used to sell cloth, etc. by doing 'Pheri' and had a very little income, which was inadequate to meet the expenses of the family. After his death, his widow and children became destitute. It was further alleged that the widow of late Pritam Lal intended to start business of wool and readymade garments as well as artificial jewellery with a view to maintain her children. She owned no other shop. The landlords further pleaded that there were a number of shops near the disputed shop owned by Nagar Palika, Bijnor and were lying vacant. The opposite party No. 1 did not require the shop in question and the landlords' requirement was genuine and bona fide. Late Pritam Lal had served a notice dated 25.9.1987 on the opposite parties. A joint written statement was filed on behalf of the opposite parties admitting that late Pritam Lal became owner and landlord of the shop in question. He had however served no notice to the tenants as required by section 21 of the Act. One Surja Singh was the tenant of the disputed shop and after his death; his interest devolved upon the contesting opposite parties and the shop were never sublet to opposite party No. 2. The application was contested on the grounds, inter alia, that Pritam Lal, his brothers and their father were doing joint textile business in two shops situate in Mohalla Sadar Bazar, Bijnor. Late Pritam Lal used to manage and look after the shop facing towards east and after his death, his youngest brother was managing the shop. The widow and children of late Pritam Lal were all living in same house and had a common mess and business. The textile business of Pritam Lal and his brothers was running at large scale and they had good earning more than their requirement Moreover, Pritam Lal owned 70 Bighas agricultural land in village Jalalpur, besides mango groves. After his death, the requirement of the disputed shop came to an end and his children (son and daughter) are, minors. Smt. Sunita Rani had no experience of business. The tenants were tarrying on business of selling betel, cigarette and fruit juice and this shop was the only source of their livelihood. The tenants had a large family, consisting of ten members and their need is more genuine and bona fide. They were not in a position to take shops owned by Nagar Palika, Bijnor on rent. The landlords wanted to enhance rent of the shop in question and as such, this application was moved. An application was also filed on behalf of the landlords alleging therein that Pritam Lal and his brothers and their father had their mess and business separately. Besides the affidavit of Smt. Sunita Rani, her father -in -law Karam Chand, her husband's brother Ashok Kumar, Nasim Kumar and Ghanshyam filed affidavits on behalf of the landlords. Besides, documentary evidence was also led. On the other hand, the tenants filed affidavits of Din Dayal, Jai Singh and they also led documentary evidence.
(2.) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the parties and considering the entire material on record, learned Prescribed Authority found that the shop in question was bona fide required by the landlords and they would suffer more hardship than the tenants. He, therefore, allowed the application and released the shop in dispute in favour of the landlords. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, Rent Appeal No. 17/52 was filed by the tenants, which was dismissed on 2.3.1994.
(3.) A counter -affidavit was filed by Smt. Sunita Devi, widow of Pritam Lal. Thereafter, rejoinder -affidavit was filed by Din Dayal alongwith a copy of birth certificate (Annexure -SA -1). A supplementary counter -affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 to the effect that Smt. Sunita Devi never married to Harish Kumar, younger brother of Pritam Lal and she has not been living with Harish Kumar as his wife. A supplementary rejoinder affidavit was filed by one Vinay, son of Jai Singh, the petitioner No. 2 to the effect that Smt. Sunita Rani married to Harish Kumar and is living with him after the death of her husband (Pritam Lal) and out of the second marriage she gave birth to a daughter on 30.3.1994.;