- (1.) RAJESH Tandon, J. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order-dated 3-2-2006 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1 in Rent Control Appeal No. 39 of 2001 under Section 21 (1) (a) under the Act No. 13 of 1972. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASe
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a and b) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in respect of shop situate at Shiv Lok Chowk, Jwalapur, District Haridwar. According to the case of the landlord, respondent No. 3, the shop in dispute is an old construction of 70 years' old and is in a dilapidated condition and he desires to rebuild the same after demolition of, the building for which the plans have already been prepared. Further the respondent No. 3 has alleged in his application that one son of the landlord has passed B. A. examination in the year, 1990 in 3rd division and the other son has already passed intermediate examination but both the sons are completely unemployed and they, want to open a show-room of cloth and as such the requirement of shop for his two sons is bona fide. He has also alleged that the comparative hardship also lies in his favour inasmuch as there will be no harm, to the tenant whereas by refusing to release the premises, both the sons will remain unemployed. The prescribed authority has rejected the application on both the grounds i. e. Section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. An appeal was preferred by the landlord under Section 22 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The Appellate Court has considered the entire evidence on the record and has allowed the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and has refused under Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act. BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT OF THE LANDLORd During the proceedings of the application filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, respondent No. 3 has filed his own affidavit 32-Ga, affidavit of Pradeep Sharma 33-Ga, report and map submitted by Engineer Naveen Goyal 35-Ga and 36-Ga and 37-Ga showing that the building is in a dilapidated condition.
(3.) SO far as the affidavit of the respondent No. 3/landlord is concerned, it has been stated that he requires the premises in order to settle his two sons. The Appellate Court, therefore, has come to the conclusion that the shop is required settle both the sons of the landlord. It has been found by the Appellate Court that no other shop is available with the respondent No. 3 and whatever the shop has been suggested by the petitioner belongs to the deity Shiv Ji Maharaj and therefore, the same is not available with the, landlord. So far as other two shops are concerned, which have been released in Case No. 14 of 1997, a finding has been recorded that the possession has not been given to the landlord and the other portion has been found to be one Baithak and Drawing Room not a shop.;