- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. List revised. No one appears for the respondents. Heard Sri K. S. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) THIS is landlords' writ petition arising out of eviction/ release proceedings initiated by them against tenants respondent nos. 3,4, and 5 on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of P. A. Case No. 1 of 1994. Property in dispute is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 90/- per month. Prescribed Authority /civil Judge, Azamgarh through judgment and order dated 20. 02. 1996 allowed the release application holding the need of landlords to be bona fide. It was further held that landlords would suffer greater hardship if release was refused than the tenants in case release application was allowed. Against the said judgment and order only Deepak respondent no. 3 filed Misc. Appeal no. 70 of 1996. The other tenants/opposite parties in the release application, i. e. , respondent no. 4, Panna and respondent no. 5, Subhash Chandra did not file appeal. Probably they were impleaded as pro forma respondents in the appeal. VIth A. D. J. , Azamgarh, allowed the appeal through judgment and order dated 23. 04. 1997 set aside the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority and rejected the release application, hence this writ petition by the landlords. In the release application it was stated that Sanjay and Rajeev, sons of landlord petitioner no. 1 had become major and required the shop for doing business. Tenants pleaded that Sanjay and Rajeev were doing lottery business. Landlord denied the said fact. It was specifically asserted by the landlords before the lower Appellate Court that tenants had not pointed out that from where Sanjay and Rajeev were doing business of selling lottery tickets. Lower Appellate Court recorded an extremely strange finding in this regard. It held that for doing business of selling lottery tickets neither any shop nor place nor any show room was required. Lower Appellate Court further held that the two sons of petitioner no. 1 i. e. Sanjay and Rajeev had not filed any affidavit.
(3.) IT was also pleaded that landlords petitioner nos. 2 and 3, Uma Shanker and Vinod were also doing business from a tenanted shop. Lower Appellate Court held that tenanted shop was sufficient for their purpose. Lower Appellate Court further held that landlord petitioner no. 1 did not prove that any of his sons had got training of electric goods. Tenants had also pleaded that Rajeev had gone abroad. However, landlords stated that Rajeev had gone to Mauritus on a temporary visa and had returned. Appellate Court did not accept the case of the landlord in this regard on the ground that visa was not filed before it.;