Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 4.9.2006, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Rampur in Rent Appeal No. 5 of 2006 whereby she set aside the judgment and order dated 13.5.2005 in P.A . Case No. 10 of 2003 passed by the Prescribed Authority/ Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rampur rejecting the release application of the respondents landlord. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents landlord filed P. A. Case No. 10 of 2003 against the petitioner tenant for release of the shop in dispute situate in Mohalla Domahla Road, Kooncha Nalbbendan, City District Rampur on the ground that two sons of respondents were out of employment ; that the landlords wanted to settle them in the business of general merchant and cold drink in the shop in dispute for which they bona fide required the shop in dispute for their need. It was further pleaded in the application that the petitioner is a rich person and is tenant of their brother Aijaz Hussain Shamsi in another shop at the rate of Rs. 600 per month in Mohalla Domahla Road and that he has let out his own shop in Mohalla Domhla Road to one Ahmad Nabi Carpenter, hence the petitioner has alternative shop for his business which he had acquired in vacant state. The petitioner contested the release application by filing a written statement that the need of the landlords is not bona fide and genuine ; that both sons of the respondents are minors and are persuing their higher studies and are not interested in doing business ; that respondent No. 1 has got his own flourishing business of Ready Made Garments in Bazar Maston Ganj whereas respondent No. 2 has also got a big business of cloths ; that both the sons can easily be adjusted if they want to engage in business ; and that if the release application is allowed, the petitioner will suffer greater hardship.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority after considering the entire evidence on record by judgment and order dated 13.5.2005 rejected the release application of the respondents landlord holding that the need of the landlords is not bona fide and that the respondents are running a flourishing business ; that they have got another house behind the shop in dispute which is on the road and the landlords can settle their sons with him in business. THE Prescribed Authority further held that the petitioner has got no other shops as the shop of Aijaz Hussain is in the tenancy of petitioner's son ; that the landlords have recently constructed 3 shops in which they can settle their sons but instead they have let out the same to others on rent and that the release application is tainted with mala fide as the respondents wanted to enhance the rent. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 13.5.2005 the respondents filed Rent Appeal No. 5 of 2006 before the appellate court which was allowed vide order dated 4.9.2006 holding the bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of the landlords, hence this writ petition by the petitioner.;