- (1.) Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.P. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no. 1.
(2.) The release application has been filed by respondent no. 1 Sri Rajesh Kumar Nathani on the ground that the shop in question is needed with the shop of another tenant who was impleaded as defendant no. 1. A compromise has been reached between defendant no. 1 and the applicant, which was accepted by the Court on 25.3.2009 and the release application against defendant no. 1 has been decided on the basis of said compromise. The vacant possession of the shop in the occupancy of defendant no. 1 was handed over to the applicant pursuant to the compromise. The petitioner had contested the need of the applicant on the ground that the need set up by him is a mere desire. The applicant is residing in Hata, District Kushinagar and is already doing cloth business in the name of 'Ambe Vastra Bhandar' in his ancestral house. The need set up by the applicant that he wants to shift to Gorakhpur and start Jewellery business in the shop in question is not genuine.
(3.) The contention of the applicant that he is residing with his family in Gorakhpur in the house of one Shiv Kumar Tulasyan owing to a dispute between the applicant and his brother and has to travel to Hata Bazar for doing the cloth business has been denied. The applicant on the other hand had filed affidavit of Shiv Kumar Tulasyan to prove that he is tenant at the monthly rent of Rs. 1000/ - in the residential house. It was further stated that the measurement of the shop which has been vacated by defendant no. 1 Keshav Prasad is only "7 ft. X 11 ft.". The shop in which the defendant no. 2 is sitting tenant is "11 ft. X 11 ft.", if both the shops are vacated the applicant would merge them and would be able to open a Showroom for the Jewellery business.;