- (1.) RAKESH Sharma, J. Heard Sri U. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant and Sri P. L. Misra, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, landlady.
(2.) THE petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 22- 10-2005, passed by the Additional District Judge, Lucknow, Revisional Court, allowing the revision preferred by the landlord under Section 18 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'u. P. Act No. 13 of 1972' ). THE landlord had challenged the order passed by the prescribed authority on 29-10-1988, refusing to release the premises in dispute and declaring the vacancy. THE Revisional Court vide order dated 22-10-2005 has declared the premises as vacant and the tenant-petitioner has been directed to vacate the premises and handover the peaceful possession to the landlady. THE review petition preferred by the petitioner-tenant which was dismissed on 3-3-2006, is also under challenge in this writ petition. It emerges from record that the owner of the building known as 'khanna Building' situate at 92/65 Aminabad Park east in the city of Lucknow had inducted the father of the petitioner, late Sri Seth Khairuddin Ahmad as tenant in the year 1930. The premises in the tenancy of Seth Khairuddin Ahmad was consisted of residential portion on the first floor and commercial premises on the ground floor where he was doing cycle business in the name and style of Punjab Cycle Works. Sri Seth Khairuddin Ahmad had died on 16-12- 1960, leaving behind four sons including the petitioner and nine daughters. The sons of both Khairuddin Ahmad, on the death of their father, claimed tenancy rights of the premises by inheritance. Two landladies, Smt. Vilaito Devi Khanna and Smt. Uma Tandon (present landlady) had filed an application for release of the said premises on 4-4-1985 before the A. D. M. , Lucknow, the prescribed authority under U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Through this application, the release of the shop and residential portion of the building was sought under Sections 12 and 16 road with Section 25 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The reasons for release as indicated in the application are that the original landlord, Seth Beshir Ahmad Bhatti (petitioner- tenant in this writ petition), illegally and unlawfully, without seeking written permission of the landladies and the Rent Control Officer i. e. District Magistrate, had sub-let the premises. It was allege that in September, 1974, a partnership firm was formed. Sri Moti Lal Agarwal, Sri Madan Lal Agarwal and Daud Ahmad, strangers to the family of the tenant, were inducted as partners. The name of the firm was changed from Punjab Cycle Works to Punjab Cycle, and Automobiles. The business under the name and style commenced in September, 1974. It was also alleged in the application for release that the tenant had sublet three shops, facing north in his occupation to one Daud Ahmad in September, 1974 where he started tailoring business. These new tenants, Sri Moti Lal Agarwal, Sri Madan Lal Agarwal and Daud Ahmad, as partners of the new firm and in the new name and style, commenced the business in the shops on ground floor of the premises, 'khanna Building' situate at 92/65 Aminabad Park east in the city of Lucknow. Thus, the accommodation in question became vacant under Sections 12 and 25 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
(3.) THE landlady, Smt. Uma Tandon had demonstrated before the prescribed authority that she had bona fidely required the accommodation to settle her two sons, Anirudh Tandon aged about 30 years and Sri Ashutosh Tandon aged about 18 years. Sri Anirudh Tandon started wholesale/retail allopathic medicines business in a rented shop measuring 10 x 12 fts. At Nadan Mahal Road, Lucknow. At the relevant time, he was paying rent @ Rs. 450/- p. m. to the landlord. This shop was out of place for selling medicines. THE business of her son Anirudh Tandon has enormously increased. THE shop in his tenancy was too small for accommodating and expanding his business. However, in the supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has indicated that Anirudh Tandon is doing business from his residence, House No. 508/69, New Hyderabad, Lucknow. THE landlady before this Court has insisted that new Hyderabad is a residential area and is not fit for wholesale medicine trade for which Aminabad Park is the right and most suitable place. THE landlady has reiterated her plea in the supplementary counter-affidavit and other documents that wholesale allopathic medicine is now carried out in Aminabad Park area. THEre are several shops, establishments, which are involved in this business in the said area. THE customers from adjoining districts rather all over the State make their purchases from the medicine market situate at Aminabad Park. By filing a supplementary counter-affidavit, the landlady has demonstrated before the Court that her second son Ashutosh Tandon also wants to establish/start his own business of wholesale market of chemicals in Aminabad area. Under the compelling circumstances, he is occupied in service and the elder son is carrying out his business from the residential area. THE landlady wanted the release of the premise for the purpose of business and residence of her two sons. She has urged that her need is bona fide and genuine. The application for release was contested by the tenant on the ground that partnership firm in which, Sri Moti Lal Agarwal, Sri Madan Lal Agarwal and Daud Ahmad, was dissolved in the year 1977 before advent of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The point of comparative hardship was raised by the tenant. It was indicated in the objections that the tenant had left India in November, 1972 for about 14 months. However, to continue the business, he sought assistance of other parents, Sri Moti Lal Agarwal, Sri Madan Lal Agarwal and his own brother Daud Ahmad. He has denied that the premises could be deemed vacant under the provisions of Sections 12 and 25 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.;