- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard S/sri Madhav Jain and Rajneesh Baranwal Counsels for the petitioner ancl S/sri Dhruva Narayana and Bala Krishna Narayana, Counsels for the respon dents.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgments and orders dated 18-2-2005 passed by District Judge, Mau in Rent Control Misc. Ap peal No. 150 of 1998 and dated 24 8-1998 passed by the Prescribed Authority/civil Judge (Junior Division), Mau in RA. Case No. 5 of 1003. The facts as have been dis closed by the petitioner in the instant writ petition, are that Sri Pramod Kumar Gupta, Smt. Shaila Devi wife of Sri Durga Dutta-respondent Nos. 1 and 4 together with one Smt. Maina Devi claiming themselves to be the landlord, on the basis of a sale-deed dated 15-9-1990 executed by Sri Habib Ahmad, the erstwhile owner of the property, in dis pute, filed release application 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') inter alia that the shop under the tenancy of the petitioner, was required by them for their own business purpose. It was averred in the applica tion that Sri Anant Prasad, father and Sri Gyan Chand, elder brother of Sri Pramod Kumar Gupta-respondent No. 1 are in possession of an independent shop in which they can easily carry on their business and that Sri Durga Dutt, the married younger brother of Sri Pramod Kumar Gupta-respondent No. 1 is sitting idle for want of accommoda tion for establishing himself in business. It was also their case that the shop in dispute was purchased by them with a view of establish Sri Durga Dutt in busi ness. The petitioner-tenant contested the release application by filing written statement denying the averments made therein inter alia, that Sri Anand Prasad father of Sri Pramod Kumar Gupta, respondent No. 1, is neither carrying on nor can do any business owing to his old age as he is about 70 years of age and that Sri Durga Dutt for whom the release application has been filed, is carrying on his independent business of General Merchant, sale of tobacco and ropes from his own shop situated near Police Chawki Mohammdabad. It was also the case of the petitioner that apart from the above shop of Sri Durga Dutt, the landlords have 7-8 other shops in their occupation and that the busi ness being carried on by the petitioner in the tenanted shop is in his physical possession for the last about 40 years and is the only source of his livelihood on which about 10 members of his fami ly are dependant. It is averred that the shop, in dispute has been sold by the erstwhile landlord, due to being on inim ical term with the petitioner-tenant whose release application for the evic tion of the petitioner-tenant from the shop, in dispute, had been dismissed.
(3.) APART from his own affidavit reiterating the grounds mentioned in the written statement, the petitioner-tenant also filed affidavit of one Mohd. Idrish before the Prescribed Authority who stated that Sri Durga Dutt is carry ing on his independent business of Kirana i. e. , General Merchant, as such, need of the landlord was sham and fic titious. The landlords filed the affidavit of Sri Anant Prasad, father of respon dent No. 1 offering alternate shop to the tenant and the affidavit of Sri Durga Dutt denying the factum of carrying on independent business.;