- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri B. D. Mandhyan, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Satish Mandhyan, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. By this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 12-9-2006 passed by the Additional District Judge. Room No. 8, Agra in Rent Control Appeal No. 240 of 2004 Smt. Sarla Devi Versus Santosh Kumar. Proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 were initiated by the landlady for release of the shop in question being building No. 4/31, Baluganj, Agra. The applicant landlady's case in the application was that the shop in question, with two rooms, kitchen on the first floor, was let out to the tenant, the landlady's husband is doing business of Goldsmith in a shop situated in Agrawal market, Tundla. The landlady has three sons, the eldest son Satish is working with his father in goldsmith business at Tundla and there is no scope for other two sons in goldsmith business. The shop was to be released for the setting up two sons, namely, Ravi Kant Goel and Gangan Goel, who have to be set up in the automobile business in the shop in question. This was opposed by the tenant stating that the tenant is running the business since long and he has no other place to shift. It was stated that the need of the landlord is not genuine. Subsequently, the petitioners having put appearance, filed additional written statement bringing on record that the landlady had purchased two shops at Tundla and the landlady can very well use the shops purchased at Tundla. The Prescribed Authority, after hearing both the parties, rejected the application holding that the need of the landlady is not genuine and bona fide. The Prescribed Authority relied on the fact that respondent landlady has purchased two shops during pendency of the application at Balaji Market, Tundla in the name of her sons Gagan Goel and Ravi Kant Goel, which can very well be utilised for her sons, hence her need was not genuine. While deciding issue No. 2, i. e. comparative hardship, the Prescribed Authority relied on the findings given on issue No. I that the need of the landlady is not bona fide. The Prescribed Authority held that naturally the tenant will suffer more hardship in case of eviction. The appeal was filed by the landlady, which has been allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 14-10-2004.
(3.) THE appellate Court, after considering the material on record, recorded finding that the need of the landlady is bona fide and genuine. THE appellate Court also recorded a finding that two shops situated at Tundla, which were purchased by the landlady, were offered by the landlady to the tenant, which was not accepted by the tenant. It also relied on the fact that one another shop, situate in the very same market Baluganj Agra can be used by the tenant for running the business. THE appellate Court allowed the appeal and directed the tenant to hand over the possession within three months. The tenant has come up in he writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners challenging the order passed by the appellate Court, contended that findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority that need of landlady is not bona fide and genuine has not been upset by appellate Court.;