- (1.) HEARD Sri Shobhit Saharia, Advo cate for the petitioner/landlord, Sri Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate for respond ent No. 3/tenant and Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASe
(2.) BY the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by re spondent No. 1 dated 20-08-2003 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) in Rent Control Act (RCA) No. 152 of 2001 and release the shop in question in favour of the petitioner. Briefly stated, an application un der Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by the petitioner pray ing for eviction of the shop situated on the first floor of Shop No. 6, Chhagan Lal Building Panditwari, Dehradun. The application was allowed by the Pre scribed Authority. However, the appel late Court has allowed the appeal. BONAFIDE NEEd According to the case of the landlord, in the year, 1994 by virtue of family settlement, the premises in dis pute has come in the share of the peti tioner. The respondent is doing the busi ness of repairing of Electronic Goods. It was stated by the petitioner that the business of the petitioner is an expand ing business and there is a turn-over of 20 lacs per year and for that purpose, he requires the shop for establishing the tailoring work there in the shop so that the customers may be benefited from the tailoring work also. In paragraph 10 of the application it has been stated that after keeping the workers, he will start the business of tailoring work in order to satisfy the customers. Paragraph 10 is quoted below :
(3.) A written statement was filed and it has been stated in paragraph 10 of the written statement that the petitioner has no experience in the job of tailoring busi ness. Relevant paragraph 10 of the writ ten statement is quoted below : "10. That para 10 of the application is wrong and false and the same is not admitted. It is wrong to say that the ap plicant has any business experience in the job of tailoring, the applicant does not know even how to thread the nee dle not to speak of tailoring business. The applicant has innovated this fancy ground just for the purpose of this re lease application, the actual facts have been further discussed in the additional pleas. " Before the prescribed authority, affidavits on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondents have been filed.;