- (1.) Instant petition. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arises out of the proceedings 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), and is directed against the order passed by IInd Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad. dated 20-12-90 acting as appel late authority under Section 22 of the Act, allowing the appeal of the tenant-respon dent No. 3 and dismissing the release ap plication.
(2.) FACTS of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner-Landlord applied for the release of the shop in question which is situated on the ground floor in House No. 106. Mohalla-Kanzimal, Ghaziabad, which was oc cupied by Dr. Har Prasad, the respondent No. 3 as tenant. It was pleaded that the petitioner used to carry on the business of sale of agricultural seeds in the name and style Krishi Beej Bhandar in shop No. 181. With a view to augment his income he wanted to settle his son Satish Kumar, who was graduate but unemployed, in the business of general merchant and cloth. Except Shop No. 181 which is situated in his residential house, rest of the house was being used for residential purposes. It was stated that the need of the petitioner was bona fide and genuine and in the event the release applica tion was rejected, he would suffer compara tively greater hardship. It was also pleaded by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that on the other hand opposite party- respondent No. 3 was aged about 70 years and was a well to do person. His children were all settled and he could easily shift his clinic from the shop in Dispute to his own house built in Kavi Nagar without any inconvenience or hardship. It was also pleaded that other shops were also available in the locality, Respondent No. 2, thus, would not suffer any hardship if the release application was allowed.
(3.) THE release application filed by the petitioner was objected to and opposed by the tenant-respondent No. 2 who pleaded that in the same building i. e. house No. 106 one room, on the ground floor situated on the back side, was lying vacant which was being used as godown by the petitioner. The proposed business could be established in the said room by Satish Kumar. The Shop which was in occupation of the landlord could also be partitioned and a portion of which could be given to Satish Kumar. Satish Kumar also owned a house in Nehru Nagar and a portion of the same was being used for carrying on the business of Cement and Biscuit Agencies by Satish Kumar. The need, set up by Landlord was, therefore, neither genuine nor bona fide and in the event the application was allowed, respon dent No. 3 will suffer comparatively greater hardship. The parties in support of their respective cases filed evidence oral and documentary. The Prescribed Authority after hearing the parties and perusing the record was pleased to hold that the need of the petitioner for settling his son Satish Kumar in the business of general merchant and cloth was bonafide and genuine. The question of comparative hardship was also decided in his favour and the release ap plication was allowed vide its order dated 13-11-87.;