A.N.Dikshita, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 11-11-1982 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Bijnor, allowing the appeal preferred by respondent nos. 2 to 8 against the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority dated 2 -2-1982 dismissing their application under section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (Act No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter called the Act) and thus releasing the shop in their favour and granting six months' time to the petitioner to vacate it.
(2.) THE facts relevant to the instant controversy are that the petitioner is a tenant of a shop at Ghantaghar, Sadar Bazar, Bijnor, since 1955 wherein a retail cloth business is being run by him in the name and style of 'Fine Cloth House'. Prior to the petitioner this shop was occupied by one Evaz Ali who was doing betel and tobacoo business therefrom. THE shop was owned by one Ghasi Ram alias Ram Kumar (hereinafter called Ghasi Ram) who stayed at Saharanpur where he was in employment of a Cane Society. THE family of Ghasi Ram used to reside at Ambar Talab, Roorkee, the place of the residence of bis in-laws. Ghasi Ram had an ancestral house situate in Mohalla Acharjan, Bijnor, where his brother Surendra Kumar, who was doing Arhat business, used to live while Ghasi Ram continued to stay at Saharanpur. Ghasi Ram expired in the district of Saharanpur sometime in the year 1972 leaving the respondent nos. 2 to 8 as his heirs. The landlords respondents nos. 2 to 8 filed an application under section 21 of the Act on 19-12-1977 before the Prescribed Authority, Bijnor, for the release of the shop which was in the tenancy and occupation of the petitioner on the ground that the said shop was required for the bona fide and genuine requirement of respondents nos. 3 and 4, Pradip Kumar and Dilip Kumar sons of Ghasi Ram. It was stated in the application filed under section 21 of the Act that Pradip Kumar, respondent no. 3, was a student of 4th year in Shri Sanatak Ayurvedic College, Rohtak, Haryana, and would be eligible to practise in June 1979 and he required the shop in dispute for the purpose of opening a clinic. It was further stated that Dilip Kumar, respondent no. 4, who was appearing as a private candidate in the Intermediate Examination but being poor in studies he too intended to establish himself in some business from the said shop. This application which was filed as early as 19-12-1977 was got amended incorporating that Pradip Kumar who had been serving in the Government Hospital as an Intern would be completing his training on 22-6-1980.
(3.) THE petitioner filed a written statement and vehemently denied the averments as contained in the application for the release of the shop. It was categorically stated on behalf of the petitioner that the alleged need of the landlords was neither genuine nor bona fide as both Pradip Kumar and Dilip Kumar were permanently residing at Roorkee and in any case had no intention to settle at Bijnor nor do they propose to start any clinic or business in the shop in dispute. THE petitioner strenuously asserted that the respondents nos. 2 to 8 were interested in disposing of the property including the shop and were already having negotiations with some parties inclusive of Chaudhari Karan Singh of Jhalara and Chaudhari Shaukin Singh of Moghalpura. It was stated that the eviction of the petitioner was being sought to deliver vacant possession to the prospective purchaser which would fetch the respondents nos. 2 to 8 a higher price. Consequent to the amendment of the release application by respondents nos. 2 to 8 an additional written statement was filed by the petitioner. The averments after the amendment of the release application that Pradip Kumar was living in a rented house was denied and the petitioner alleged that Pradip Kumar was in fact residing with his uncle. The petitioner further alleged that respondents nos. 2 to 8 had already relinquished their share in favour of Surendra Kumar, brother of Ghasi Ram, and in view of this solitary fact it was clear that respondents nos. 2 to 8 had no intention of permanently settling at Bijnor or opening a clinic or doing any business. It was further asserted on behalf of the petitioner that in fact Pradip Kumar genuinely intends to start medical practice with his maternal uncle, Dr. Chandra Prakash at Roorkee.;