- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. This is landlady's writ petition. It was earlier allowed on 13-5-2005 without hearing tenants-respondents as no one appeared on their behalf on that date. Thereafter, on the restoration/rehearing application, the said judgment and order was set-aside through order dated 18-11-2005 passed on the restoration application and learned Counsel for both the parties were heard on the merit of the writ petition on the same date i. e. 18-11-2005 and judgment was reserved.
(2.) RELEASE application filed by the landlady under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of Rent Case No. 4 of 1989 was allowed by prescribed authority/munsif Banda on 10-5-1991. However- appeal filed against the said judgment and order being Rent Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1991 was allowed by A. D. J. /special Judge (E. C. Act), Banda through judgment and order dated 17-2- 1997. Appellate Court set-aside the judgment and order of the trial Court and dismissed the release application. This petition by the landlady is directed against order of Appellate Court dated 17-2-1997. In the release application, it was stated that accommodation in dispute which is a shop was required by the landlady to settle her son in business. Appellate Court held that the need stood satisfied, as the landlady had started coaching institute in the name of Era Convent School and Matchless Coaching Center.
(3.) LANDLADY pleaded that she had 12 issues out of whom four daughters had been married; that her husband due to problem of heart and blood pressure had stopped his practice of advocacy since July 1988; that shop in dispute was required to settle her eldest son Zulfiqar Haider in business of selling stationery. During pendency of appeal subsequent events were brought on record by the tenant and it was stated that landlady in her residential house had started the following institute: (1) Era Convent School, (2) Matchless Coaching Center, and (3) Mahila Hastha Shilp Prashikshan Kendra. The tenant asserted that the said institutes were being managed by Zulfiqar Haider. It was also stated that new constructions had also been raised by the landlady in her house upon the first floor, above the shop in dispute. Appellate Court found that Basic Shiksha Adhikari had recognised New Era Convent School, which was a primary school. Appellate Court held that, as landlady did not disclose that who was running the said school hence assertion of the tenant that Zulfiqar Haider was running the school was correct. Appellate Court further held that the averment of the tenant in his affidavit that Zulfiqar Haider was running the said school was not specifically denied and Zulfiqar Haider did not file his own affidavit. Appellate Court also found that Matchless Coaching Institute was also being run by Zulfiqar Haider. Appellate Court further found that school and coaching center were being run by Zulfiqar Haider hence this subsequent events either disproved his need or fulfilled the same. In respect of Handicraft Center Appellate Court noted that landlady stated that it was being run by her daughters but no specific names were mentioned. However, Appellate Court disbelieved the need for Zulfiqar Haider on the ground that he was running the aforesaid school and coaching institute.;