- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. The petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and decree dated 29-7- 2000 passed by the Prescribed Authority/vith Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra allowing the release application of the respondent-landlord, affirmed vide judgment and order dated 6- 4-2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Agra.
(2.) THE factual backdrop of the case leading to the present proceeding may be stated thus: Respondent-landlord moved release application, registered as P. A. Case No. 57 of 1997 under Section 21 (1) (A) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that he is owner and landlord of the disputed shop in which the petitioner is tenant at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month, who is carrying on seasonal business of making earthen toys. The family of the landlord consists of two sons and a married daughter. It is averred in the application that his eldest son Sri Manish Kumar passed B. Sc. in 1991 but could not get any job as such the landlord wants to establish him in the disputed shop for general merchandise business. It is also averred that apart from disputed shop, no other shop is available to him; and that the tenant has got another shop adjacent to shop in dispute where he may shift his business. The tenant-petitioner contested the release application by filing written statement denying the averments contained in the release application. He alleged that the landlord was co-owner of the disputed shop and that rent of not only the disputed shop but all the three shops in the tenancy of the petitioner was Rs. 10/- per month.
(3.) IT is alleged that the description of the disputed shop given in the plaint was incorrect; that he is carrying on business of making toys from the disputed shop for the last about 60 years and that his business of not seasonal. The landlord is leading a retired life having a monthly rental income of Rs. 5,000/- besides yearly agricultural income of about Rs. 10,000/-; that the landlord has got huge properties in Jauhari Bazar and Kasaeewada. IT is stated that it is unbelievable that his eldest son Sri Manish Kumar who has passed L. L. B and is pracitising lawyer would start business of general merchandise from the disputed shop and that in the residential portion, the landlord has got many rooms, as such, his need was not bona fide or genuine. Both the parties filed affidavits in support of their respective cases.;