- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS is tenant's writ petition filed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Firozabad in Misc. PA Appeal No. 19 of 2002 dated 13-1-2006 dismissing the appeal filed by the tenant against the order of the Prescribed Authority/civil Judge (Junior Division), Firozabad dated 14-3-2002 in PA No. 2 of 1997. Respondent Smt. Baby Jain is the owner and landlord of the disputed shop situated at Tundla, district Firozabad. The shop in dispute was let out to the petitioner on monthly rent of Rs. 300/- apart from taxes etc. on 1-4-1984. An application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act N. 13 of 1972 was filed by the landlady for the release of the aforesaid shop against the petitioner on the ground that at the time of letting out the shop she was residing at Etah with her husband who was doing business of motor parts. It was averred in the application that the shop was required for her husband as the family has shifted to Tundla with bag and baggage and now her husband is jobless. It was further alleged that the tenant has been elected as Member of the Vidhan Sabha as such the disputed shop is kept closed by him and he has constructed his own shops in the vicinity/adjoining property to the shop in dispute. The landlord also alleged that her need is extreme and bona fide and the tenant does not require the shop in dispute but is demanding premium for vacating the shop in dispute.
(3.) THE application was contested by the tenant by filing W. S. dated 6-1-1997. He claimed that the need of the landlord was not bona fide and has no cause of action as the husband of the landlady is doing business in her home; that application is barred by the provisions of Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and Rule 16 of the Act. It was also his case that he is doing business of motor parts in the shop in dispute for the last 13 years and has earned good will due to his honesty and hard labour. THE shop in dispute situated on Agra Firozabad highway which is suitable for the business of motor parts and is the only source of livelihood of the family of the respondent. It was averred in the reply that the landlady is having another vacant shop adjacent to the petitioner's shop in the same house which could be used by her husband and her need is not bona fide. The petitioner has no property towards east of the shop in dispute and towards east of the shop in dispute the property of his father is situated which has not been partitioned as yet and the petitioner is living separately and is not in possession of any shop in the said house. Further it was averred that the shop in dispute has been let out in contravention of Sections 11 and 13 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 whereas the shop in dispute was constructed much before September, 1982 as provision of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been violated in letting the shop in dispute.;