- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the judgments and orders dated 18-9-2002 and 29-9- 1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, District Etah and the Prescribed Authority/civil Judge (Junior Division), Etah, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The facts in brief are that respondent No. 3-landlord filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act with respect to two shops under the tenancy of the petitioners situate in Mohalla Gandhi Nagar, Railway Road, Etah. The aforesaid application was registered as P. A. Case No. 15 of 1987 which was challenged on the ground that petitioners are tenant of the aforesaid shops on monthly rent of Rs. 125/- per month. Respondent No. 3 requires the aforesaid two shops to establish her sons namely, Rajesh Kumar and Awadhesh Kumar who are unemployed. The petitioners contested the release application on the ground that two shops were let out to them separately and that son of petitioner No. 1 is doing his own independent business in the shop situate in Mohalla Moolchand, hence petitioner No. 1 cannot shift his business there. It is also their stand that the shops constructed by petitioner No. 2 in Mohalla Moolchand are far away from the main market and therefore, could not be even let out to tenants as such petitioner No. 2 cannot shift his business in those shops for the reasons that no person would come to him there and his business would be ruined.
(3.) IT is urged that the sons of respondent No. 3 are doing their respective businesses of Kapda, Press and Kolhu as described in the written statement and they can enlarge their business as they have sufficient space there. IT was lastly submitted that respondent No. 3 did not accept rent from them, which is deposited under Section 30 of the Act in Misc. Case No. 123 of 1986 and Misc. Case No. 124 of 1986 respectively, hence no rent is due and they are entitled to benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. It appears from the record that respondent No. 3 on 25-8-1988 filed replication (paper No. 31-A/1) stating that it was correct that petitioner No. 1 was tenant of the southern shop from 1966 to 1976 but he vacated in 1976. The petitioners and the respondents gave their evidence on affidavit. During the pendency of the release application suit No. 906 of 1990 was filed by the landlord-respondent No. 3 on 18-12-1990 against the petitioners for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession of respondent No. 3 over the shop in dispute and also restraining them from demolishing or causing damage to the shop in dispute.;