Mam Chandra Agarwal, J. - (1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 2nd July, 1996 passed by the District Judge, Bulandshahr, whereby he allowed the landlord respondent's appeal under Section 22 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and ordered the eviction of the petitioner under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.
(2.) I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Mishra, learned Counsel for the landlord respondent. The petitioner is a co -operative society. The landlady Smt. Punita Singh respondent is, admittedly, the owner and the landlady of the accommodation i.e. a shop situate at Ansari Road in the town of Bulandshahr. She initiated proceedings for the eviction of the petitioner under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. She claimed that she is residing in the Bulandshahr town and is a graduate. Her husband had also studied upto B.A. and they need the shop in suit for starting a readymade garment business. It was alleged that her husband owns agricultural land which he is unable to look after himself. The husband holds 110 bighas of land in village Shikarpur but the income from agriculture is not sufficient to meet the expenses of the family which has seven servants and also owns a motor -car. Their one son and one daughter are studying in Walhem Boarding College, Dehradun and the expenditure on their education is about Rs. 4,500 per month. Since the income from agriculture was not sufficient to meet the expenses of the family the husband had to sell agricultural land to provide for the funds. It was alleged that the tenant had got huge building constructed which had several shops, some of which were lying vacant. The said building was stated to be near Mumford Club and some of the shops that were lying vacant were alleged to be bigger than the shop in suit. Thus, it was contended that the tenant can easily shift his business to that place. The petition was contested by the tenant petitioner. It was alleged that in fact the landlady does not need the accommodation as she has no intention to do any business. According to the tenant petitioner the landlady only wanted to increase the rent. According to the tenant petitioner the landlady and her husband usually reside in village Shikarpur where her husband has his agricultural land. It was claimed that the shop in suit was in its tenancy since 1957 and was being used for carrying on business. It was denied that the landlady's husband sold any property. It was claimed that the tenant is a public sector corporation and, therefore, the petition under Section 21(1)(a) did not lie. The construction of a building near Mumford Club was admitted. It was also admitted that the said building has five shops out of which in two shops a printing press had been installed and the other three shops were being used as godowns for the goods relating to the business carried on in the shop in suit. The Prescribed Authority held that the tenant was a public sector corporation and hence the application under Section 21(1)(a) was not maintainable. It also held that the landlady had no bona fide need for the shop in suit and her claim that she wants to set up a business in ready -made garments was not reliable. It also held that the tenant had an established business in the shop in suit and would suffer greater hardship if it is ordered to be evicted.
(3.) ON appeal by the landlady the learned District Judge held that the tenant was not a public sector corporation. He also held that the need of the landlady was bona -fide and she would suffer greater hardship if she is denied the possession of her own property.;