Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HAKEEM Wasi Ahmad (since deceased and survived by legal representatives) was landlord of the accommodation in dispute which is in file form of two shops rent of which is Rs. 20/ - per month. Dr. Mohd. Naqi is the tenant of the said shops. Landlord filed release application against tenant in respect of the shops in dispute on the ground of bonafide need of his sons under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 30 of 1980 before prescribed authority, Gorakhpur. In the release application it was stated that landlord was doing practice in Unani Medicines from a portion of his residential house and Mohd. Ahmad his eldest son had also passed course of Unani Medicines from Aligarh Muslim University and the shops in dispute were required for establishing clinic for Mohd. Ahmad. It was also pleaded that for want of accommodation Mohd. Ahmad was sitting alongwith his father in his clinic, which was being run from the residential house. It was also stated that Mohd. Akmal the second son of the landlord was doing business from a tenanted shop and his third son Matiullah was also doing five years Unani Medical course from Aligarh Muslim University. It was also stated that the other two sons were studying in school. Landlord also stated that he had nine daughters out of whom three had been married. In the release application it was specifically pleaded that the shops in dispute numbered as 1 and 2 were required for opening clinic for Mohd. Ahmad. It was also stated that tenant Dr. Mohd. Naqi was a Homeopathic Doctor and was running his clinic from the shops in dispute.
(2.) PRESCRIBED authority through judgment and order dated 25.9.1982 allowed the release application in part. Only one shop was released and landlord was directed to file his choice of the shop. Against the judgment and order dated 25.9.1982 both the parties filed appeals. Tenant's appeal was numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 427 of 1982 and landlord's appeal was numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 434 of 1982. IVth A.D.J., Gorakhpur through judgment and order dated 20.5.1985 dismissed both the appeals. It appears that before the prescribed authority landlord had given conditional choice for shop No. 2 hence Appellate Court confirmed the order passed by the prescribed authority releasing shop No. 2 in favour of the landlord. Against the aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Court both the parties have filed these writ petitions. Tenant's dispossession has been stayed by order passed in his writ petition. In the rejoinder affidavit it was stated that one of the sons of original landlord had been employed in Public Health Center. On that point parties were directed to file supplementary affidavit. On behalf of landlord supplementary counter affidavit was filed on 8.11.2005. In the said Supplementary counter affidavit it was stated that Matiullah for want of any proper accommodation to run his clinic temporarily got employment in Public Health Center where he was still not permanent and as soon as his services were discontinued he would start private medical practice.
(3.) IT also appears that during pendency of writ petition landlords reconstructed their house in 2004 -05 and in the reconstructed portion some shops were also constructed by them which were let out to other tenants and some were occupied by grandsons of Hakeem Wasi Ahmad, the original landlord. These allegations have been made in the supplementary affidavit sworn on 15.4.2005 filed by tenant in the second writ petition. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed in the first writ petition on 8.11.2005 it has been stated that no room of newly constructed building was available to Dr. Mohd. Ahmad therefore, he started his medical practice in Khaprela dalan of his residential house adjacent to the shop in dispute.;