S.U.Khan - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against tenant respondent No. 2 Mohan Lal 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. 124 of 1994. prescribed authority/J.S.C.C. Meerut allowed the release application through judgment and order dated 27.4.1996. Against the said judgment and order, tenant respondent No. 2 filed Misc. Appeal (P.A.) No. 177 of 1976. A.D.J./Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Meerut through judgment and order dated 14.5.1997 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority and rejected the release application of petitioner landlord, hence this writ petition. Property in dispute is a shop situate in Meerut, rent of which is Rs. 75.60 per month. In the release application, it was stated that landlord had three adult sons, Pradeep Kumar (Chartered Accountant), living at Delhi, Atul Kumar, carrying iron business from a shop at Mawana and third son Rajeev Kumar was also helping his elder brother Atul Kumar. It was stated that Rajeev Kumar wanted to open cloth business in Meerut from the shop in dispute. Landlord resides at Mawana, which is a town of Meerut.
(3.) THE tenant pleaded that Rajeev Kumar was a partner in a firm M/s. Delhi Iron Wires and both brothers, i.e., Atul Kumar and Rajeev Kumar, were doing joint business from the shop at Mawana and Rajeev Kumar also helped his father in cloth business. It was further pleaded that landlord possessed several shops at town Mawana, hence he could settle Rajeev Kumar in any one of those shops. Lower appellate court allowed the appeal on the ground that landlord had four shops at Mawana and there was no explanation why he could not settle his son Rajeev Kumar in business from any of those four shops. The finding of the lower appellate court in this regard is quoted below : "In the present case, it is admitted to the landlord that he has four shops at Mawana itself. There is no evidence on record to explain why the landlord did not choose any one of those shops. The mere fact that these shops were in the tenancy of others does not help the case of the landlord because the disputed shop is also under tenancy." ;