M.P. Saxena, J. - (1.) This is landlord's petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
(2.) The petitioner is the owner of the building No. 745 situate in Malinwali Gali in the town of Hathras. He resides in the first floor of this building. A portion of the ground floor consisting of 8 rooms was allotted to the respondent No. 2 for the purpose of his godown. The petitioner moved an application under section 21 of the said Act for release of the premises in possession of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on the ground that he bona fide requires it for his own use. As regards his requirement he gave out that his eldest son Suresh Chandra is dealing in cloth in a portion of the Pauli of his house which is not sufficient for his requirement. His another son Satish Chandra also needs a shop for himself. Besides it the family of the petitioner is growing and consisted of 9 members at the time of making the application for release. Thereafter three more members (two sons and one daughter of Suresh Chandra) have also been added to the family. The petitioner's wife is suffering from advanced Branchial Asthama. On the medical advice she should not be allowed to go on the first floor and the ground floor is needed for accommodating her. It was also alleged that the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are carrying on their business in a building situate in Hanuman Gali as well as in a shop situate opposite to the disputed shop. According to him the disputed shop was being kept locked all the time. Therefore, on the ground of bans fide need and availability of alternative accommodation to the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 release of the disputed building was sought.
(3.) The respondent contested the application, inter alia, on the grounds that the respondent No. 2 alone is the tenant and respondents Nos. 1 and 3 have nothing to do with it. According to them the respondent No 2 is carrying on cloth business in the disputed shop for the last 13 years and had created close contacts with the clientale and customers visiting Malinwali Gali where most of the shops dealing in cloth are situate. The said respondent has acquired goodwill and will suffer irreparable loss if he is required to vacate the disputed shop. According to them the petitioner has no bona fide need and the contesting respondent was using a portion of the building in Hanuman Gali and opposite to the disputed shop only as a godown.;