- (1.) This writ petition by the tenant is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Lucknow in Rent Appeal No.51 of 2002, whereby the appeal filed the opposite parties no.3 and 4 was allowed and the order dated 26.09.2012 passed by the learned Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No.16 of 2011 was set aside. Learned appellate Court by allowing the rent appeal also allowed the application for release moved by the opposite parties no.3 and 4 under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises in his occupation within sixty days from the date of judgment.
(2.) The dispute relates to a shop situated on the ground floor of House No.215/445, Durga Bhawan, Naka Hindola, Lucknow, in which the petitioner is admittedly a tenant. According to opposite parties no.3 and 4, the petitioner was not paying rent of the shop in his occupation since last about ten years and a portion of the shop had also fallen down due to its old age. The petitioner-tenant had purchased two shops on the ground floor of House No.288/151Ka, Arya Nagar, Lucknow which is only 25 meters away from the shop in question. The aforesaid two shops were purchased by the petitioner-tenant in the year 1993 from Kaushaliya Devi and since then he has been carrying on his business in the said shops. The son of the opposite party no.4, namely, Balvinder Singh had a B.Com Degree and was aged 25 years, but he was still jobless and has no shop to start his own business. The opposite parties no.3 and 4 wanted to set up a new electronic business for Balvinder Singh but on account of non-availability of any accommodation, Balvinder Singh was still jobless and for this reason he was still unmarried. Since the petitioner-tenant had already purchased two shops and had also being carrying on business from the said shops, he had no need of the shop in question. The opposite parties no.3 and 4 also gave an undertaking that after the release of the shop, they will not let out the same to any person but will establish a new business for Balvinder Singh. They also expressed their willingness to pay two years' rent to the petitioner-tenant as compensation. With the aforesaid averments, the opposite parties no.3 and 4 made a prayer for release of the shop.
(3.) The petitioner-tenant while admitting his tenancy in respect of the shop in question, stated that the shop was previously owned by Smt. Kalawati Devi and late Shri Jhandumal was its tenant. After the death of Smt. Kalawati Devi in the year 1968, the opposite parties no.3 and 4 purchased the building including the shop in question in the year 1989 from the legal heirs of Smt Kalawati Devi. Late Shri Jhandumal was tenant in respect of a shop in question @ Rs.35/- per month and had also been paying rent to the opposite parties no.3 and 4. He died on 28.11.2002 and after his death his sons, namely, Suresh Chandra Agarwal, the petitioner himself, Shri Mukesh Agarwal and Smt. Maya Devi inherited the tenancy rights. The petitioner-tenant had been carrying on business from the shop in dispute while his two brothers, namely Suresh Chandra and Mukesh have been carrying on business from the shop which were purchased from Smt. Kaushaliya Devi in the year 1993. The petitioner-tenant also stated in his written statement that the opposite parties no.3 and 4 have always been trying to evict the petitioner in any way or the other and had stopped accepting the rent, therefore, the rent was deposited in the Court. They had filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment in the Court of Judge Small Causes, which was dismissed on 15.02.2011. With regard to Balvinder Singh, it was stated by the petitioner-tenant that Balvinder Singh was engaged in business and had been carrying on his business in the name of "M/s. Music CD Mahel" from the shop which is situated very near to the disputed shop. Apart from this, he was also running a "Max Cafe". It was further stated by the petitioner-tenant that Balvinder Singh was already married and it was absolutely wrong to say that he could not perform his marriage on account of his being jobless. The petitioner-tenant further stated that except the shop in question, he had no other accommodation to either shift his business or establish a new business. The opposite parties no.3 and 4 had twelve shops in House No.215/445 and three shops in a building which belongs to Hanuman Mandir Trust. He had already got released seven shops from Smt. Gulab Devi by the Court and in all these seven shops, the opposite parties no.3 and 4 have been carrying on their business. It was also taken as a ground in the written statement that the opposite parties no.3 and 4 did not serve any statutory notice of six months as required under the provisions of Section 21 of the Act.;