- (1.) THE landlord has filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 30th August, 1997 passed by the prescribed authority by which the application filed by him under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') for eviction of the tenant from the shop in dispute as it was bona fide required by him for establishing his two sons in business was rejected. The landlord has also sought the quashing of the judgment dated 14th february, 2001 by which the appeal filed by him under section 22 of the Act, for setting aside the order passed by the prescribed authority, was dismissed.
(2.) THE application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was filed by the landlord on 13th March, 1996 for eviction of the tenant from the shop in dispute and the same was registered as Rent Case No. 3 of 1996. It was inter alia stated that the landlord had let out the shop in dispute to Moti Ram on a monthly rent of Rs. 22/- which shop was required for the bona fide need of the landlord for establishing his sons Sanjay Kumar and Ajay Kuamr in business; the family of the landlord consisted of his wife and four sons Sanjay Kumar, Ajay Kumar, rajeev and Prabhas; Rajeev was employed in Kisan Gramin Bank while prabhas was also employed; Sanjay Kumar who was married and had two children was doing business in a rented shop in Mohalla Madhavganj which shop he had taken on rent of Rs. 150/- per month while his other son Ajay kumar was also doing business in a rented shop at Chawra Market which shop he had taken on rent at Rs. 250/- per month that the shops taken on rent by sanjay Kuamr and Ajay Kumar were insufficient for carrying out the business and the respective landlords were also pressurising them to vacate the shops and the children also wanted to augment their income as the family was increasing. It was further stated that so far as the tenant was concerned he did not require the shop and in fact many shops of Nagar Palika in Kasba Ujhani were vacant which he could take on rent and that the landlord was likely to suffer greater hardship in the event the application filed by him was rejected.
(3.) A reply was filed by the tenant to the aforesaid application filed by the landlord. It was inter alia stated that he was doing business of repairing shoes from the shop in dispute and that even earlier the landlord had filed a suit for eviction against him which was dismissed but as the appeal filed by the landlord was allowed, he had filed a writ petition in this Court which was ultimately allowed and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Court for a fresh decision and the appeal was subsequently dismissed against which a writ petition is pending in this Court; that his family was very big consisting of 17 members; that he had no other shop available with him from where he could do this small business of repairing shoes; that in case he was asked to shift to some other rented shop, he would have to pay more than Rs. 1000/- per month as rent and also premium of about Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,00,000/- and that the sons of the landlord did not require the shop as they were already doing business from the rented shops. It was also stated that the tenant was likely to suffer greater hardship in the event the application was allowed.;