- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 5-10-2001 passed by the Special Judge/additional District Judge, Kannauj passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 1/43 of 2002 as well as judgment and decree dated 18-10- 2002 passed by Prescribed Authority in P. A. Suit No. 1/98 filed by the respondent-landlord in a proceeding 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' ).
(2.) THE factual matrix giving rise to the present writ petition are that landlord-respondent filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act registered as P. A. Case No. 1 of 1998. THE ground taken in the release application was bona fide and genuine need of the disputed shop of the landlord admeasuring 10 ft. X 21 ft. , which was let out to the petitioner's father on rent for tailoring purposes. It is alleged in the release application that with the passage of time, his private practice as doctor has flourished and it is too difficult for him to accommodate large number of patients in his clinic in the adjoining backside small shop admeasuring 9 ft. X 10 ft. He claimed one consultation room, one waiting room for patients, one room for examination of patients and one medicine distribution counter room. The landlord alleged that the tenant- petitioner is already in possession of three vacant shops in the nearby Jama-Masjid adjoining his residential house, which is hardly at a distance of half kilometers whereas he, the landlord, does not have any alternate accommodation in the town. The tenant-petitioner contested the release application by filing written statement and denying the averments contained therein. The tenant alleged that he is running his tailoring shop in the name and style of 'fainshi Tailor' from the disputed accommodation since 1962; that initially the monthly rent of the disputed shop was 60/- which was subsequently enhanced from time to time and from March, 1997, monthly rent was Rs. 200/-; that he has earned goodwill and in case he is evicted from the disputed shop, he would face greater hardship than the landlord. He also alleged that the disputed shop is situated at G. T. Road which is full of noise due to heavy traffic and is not suitable for running hospital/clinic and that the landlord has several other shops and few of them have been sold away to the sitting tenants.
(3.) APART from his own affidavit in support of his case, the landlord filed affidavits of Sri Govind Murari Chaturvedi, Advocate and Dr. Subhash Chandra. The tenant also filed his own affidavit and the affidavits of Sri Kallu son of Sri Chhadawan and Sri Sarfaraj son of Sri Rajjak Khan in support of his case. After appraisal of evidence of both the parties, the Prescribed Authority vide judgment and decree dated 18-10- 2002 allowed the release application of the landlord.;