JUDGEMENT
Krishna Murari, J. -
(1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 11.5.1998 passed by the respondent No. 1 allowing the appeal filed by tenant -respondent and rejecting the release application. Dispute relates to premises No. 103/6, Namner Agra Cantt. which was being occupied by respondent No. 2 as a tenant on a monthly rent of -Rs. 800/ -. The building was being utilised by the tenant -respondent for running a Lodge in the name of 'Central Lodge. An application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was filed by the landlord -petitioners seeking release on the ground that the same was required for establishing her son Sanjeev Kumar in Lodge -cum -Restaurant business in the said building. It was pleaded in the release application on behalf of the landlord -petitioners that the premises in dispute belonged to one Radhey Lal and was let out to the tenant -respondent with his permission on 1.6.1976 for a period of ten years and in this connection a lease deed was executed on 24.9.1976. Sri Radhey Lal executed a Will deed on 10.10.1974 bequeathing the premises in dispute in favour of petitioner No. 1 and after his death on 23.12.1975 she has become the absolute owner. It was also pleaded that the tenant -respondent already had another premises in his occupation where he is running a hotel in the name and style of 'Calcutta Hotel' and therefore, shall not suffer any hardship whereas son of the landlord -petitioners has no other suitable place for carrying on his independent business and the premises in question is most ideally suited for hotel and restaurant business.
(2.) THE release application was contested by the tenant -respondent denying the bona fide and genuine need of the landlord for setting her son in the hotel business. It was further pleaded that they already have huge property near Agra Fort Bus stand which has been renovated extensively and an advertisement was also published in the local newspaper 'Amar Ujala' dated 18th July, 1987 inviting a partner for starting a lodge/hotel in the said building. It was further pleaded that building is lying vacant and is in possession of the petitioner and situated within the vicinity of Agra fort railway station as well as Taj Mahal, Etma"dudaula and is most suitable place for lodge and hotel business. It was also pleaded in the written statement that the premises in which 'Calcutta Hotel' is being run is a very small property not having sufficient accommodation for the customers and the said business is also not sufficient to feed the entire family of the tenant and his sons are grown up who are also required to be established. It was also pleaded by the tenant -respondent that he has made extensive repairs of the disputed accommodation since the time it was let out and invested a huge amount in maintenance and face lift of the building and if he is rejected therefrom shall suffer a loss of goodwill earned by him. The prescribed authority after analysing the evidence on record held that the petitioner No. 1 is owner in view of the 'Will' dated 10.10.1974 and the building situate in front of Agra fort near bus stand was bequeathed in favour of the husband of the petitioner No. 1 and was not in such condition in which hotel business could be run. A very categorical finding was recorded by the prescribed authority that the tenant -respondent has failed to produce any evidence to demonstrate that the said building was suitable for running of a hotel or lodge business and was vacant.
(3.) IN so far as advertisement is concerned, the prescribed authority disbelieved that the said advertisement was issued by the landlord -petitioner. In so far as question of bona fide need is concerned, the prescribed authority recorded a categorical finding that the son of the petitioner was unemployed and the need to establish him was genuine and bona fide and the building in dispute in which admittedly a hotel was already being run was suitable for the need of setting her son in hotel and restaurant business.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.