- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard Sri P. K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Madan Mohan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Counsel for the tenant respondent, who appeared through caveat.
(2.) THIS is tenant's wit petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent 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. 141 of 1999. Prescribed Authority/additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 13, Allahabad allowed the release application through judgment and order dated 19. 11. 2005. Against the said judgment and order tenants petitioners filed R. C. Appeal No. 220 of 2005, A. D. J. , Court No. 2, Allahabad, through judgment and order dated 4. 8. 2008, dismissed the appeal, hence this writ petition. Property in dispute is commercial in nature and is situate on ground floor rent of which is Rs. 100/- per month. It contains five portions. Map of the accommodation in dispute is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Depth is about 50 feet. Frontage is varying. Frontage of the first portion is 16. 25 feet, of the next portion 19. 5 feet, of the next 14. 25 feet and of the last portion 11. 75 feet. Front portion is mentioned as Gaddy, next two portions as go-downs, thereafter courtyard and verandah and in the end also there is a verandah. Initially tenants' appeal was allowed on 5. 9. 2007. However, that order was set aside in Writ Petition No. 51223 of 2007, which was allowed on 4. 12. 2007 and matter was re manded to the Appellate Court. Thereafter, the said order was modified on 29. 2. 2008 and it was directed that appeal should be heard and decided on all the points. Thereafter, Appellate Court dismissed the appeal through judg ment and order dated 4. 8. 2008. Landlord stated that he had passed B. Com. and wanted to start busi ness of chuni and bhusa (pulse split and chaff/cut-straw ). Tenant are carrying on business of food-grains from the shop in dispute. Landlord resides on the first floor along with his father and their family members. It was also stated that tenants were quite rich and their sons had several shops in which the business carried out from the accommodation in dispute could be shifted. Details of the properties available with the tenants and their sons were also given by the landlord.
(3.) TENANTS denied the allegations of the release application. TENANTS as serted that Dukhi Lal grand- father of the landlord was originally landlord of the accommodation in dispute and Dukhi Lal had several houses and one of the said houses, i. e. , House No. 430, Muthiganj, Allahabad, was in the form of big mandi containing 25-30 shops and several good-owns and some of the shops and go-downs were let out after filing of the release application. It was also pleaded that family members of Dukhi Lal had never done any business and they possessed several immovable properties from which they were earning lacs of rupees per year as rental income. In respect of the properties asserted by the landlord to belong to the tenants, the tenants stated that most of the said properties were houses and some were situate in narrow lanes. It is not disputed that grand-father of landlord had died before filing of the release application. Tenants also pleaded that landlords' grand-father had executed a 'will' on 15. 12. 1983 giving different properties to his different sons and grandsons. However after the death of Dukhi Lal, his sons and grand sons readjusted the properties among themselves. During pendency of appeal, landlord filed copies of some sale deeds executed by the tenants in respect of their properties. Jagdish Chandra tenant petitioner No. 2 stated that in some of the properties he had only one third shares and they were not suitable for commercial purpose. All the sale deeds relates to house No. 398 having total area of about 230 square yards. Photographs of the said properties were also part of the sale deeds. Lower Appellate Court held that from perusal of the same, it appeared that said property was situate on 12 feet wide road and contained open space in front, which was suitable for doing wholesale grain business. The tenants had filed documents showing that their annual turnover was about Rs. 4 crores. Tenants had also pleaded that adjoining shops also belonged to the landlord and he could use the same. However, all those shops were already let out to the tenants.;