- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 10.12.2014 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Room No. 8 Jhansi in P.A. Case No. 55 of 2013, whereby the application of the petitioner for inspection has been rejected.
(3.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner is tenant of shop situated at House No.263 Mohalla Bazar Baruasar, Jhansi at the monthly rent of Rs. 300/ - per month, of? which the respondent No. 1 and 2 are the landlord, who filed release application under Section 21(1)(A) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for releasing the shop on the ground that they bonafidely required the shop for themselves and later on it was alleged that the same was needed to establish the business of their sons.? The aforesaid release application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent No. 1 and 2 did not need the shop in question as they were doing their own business and teaching and during the pendency of the said release application, it was alleged that the petitioner filed documentary evidence to prove his case and to show that the son of respondent No.2 -Ramdhar Birthare namely Ashish was doing business of mobile shop from the house No. 186, which averment was denied by the said respondent and therefore an application was filed by the petitioner for issuing directions for inspection to ascertain the aforesaid facts whether the son of the respondent No. 2 was in bona fide need of the shop in question but the said application has been illegally rejected by the order impugned which is an important question to ascertain whether the shop in question was bonafidely required by the respondent -landlord.? Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the matter of Durga Prasad Bansal versus Vimla Devi (Smt) and others, 2008 2 ARC 837 and another judgment of this Court rendered in the matter of Dwarika Nath Soni versus Bhagwan Das Gupta,2003 1 ARC 418. As the question which is involved in the present case is regarding bona fide need of the shop in question by the respondent -landlord or their sons, therefore, it was necessary to return a finding regarding the bona fide need whether the averment which was made by the petitioner on oath that the son of the respondent No. 2 was doing business of mobile from a particular shop which was denied by the respondents ought to have been? got confirmed by the Prescribed Authority when such a specific application in the said regard was moved by the petitioner -tenant.;