S.U.Khan - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS is a landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against tenant-respondent No. 1 on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act in the form of Case No. 2 of 1980. Property in dispute is a shop rent of which is Rs. 40 per month. Landlord has died and substituted by his legal representatives. Prescribed authority/Munsif City, Azamgarh through judgment and order dated 26.5.1982 dismissed the release application. Against the said judgment and order, landlord-petitioner filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 171 of 1982. A.D.J./Special Judge (E.C. Act), Azamgarh dismissed the appeal through judgment and order dated 22.4.1983, hence this writ petition. I dismissed this writ petition on 5.1.2004 without looking into the merits of the case on the ground that even if arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner were accepted, matter would require remand as release application had been dismissed by both the courts below. However, while dismissing the writ petition, liberty was granted to the landlord-petitioner to file fresh release application. Against judgment and order dated 5.1.2004, appeal was filed before Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 2480 of 2007). Supreme Court allowed the appeal through judgment and order dated 14.5.2007 set aside the order of the High Court and remanded the matter to the High Court to decide the matter finally. Supreme Court also directed that subsequent events shall also be considered by the High Court, if necessary. The judgment of Supreme Court is in Ram Kumar Barnwal v. Ram Lakhan, 2007 AIR SCW 3250 : 2007 (3) AWC 2866 (SC).
(3.) IT may be mentioned that even before the judgment of the Supreme Court in this case, I had changed my view and held that even if release application of the landlord has been dismissed by both the courts below still in suitable cases High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction can grant final relief to the landlord vide Mohd. Arif v. A.D.J., 2005 (2) ARC 793 : 2006 (2) AWC 1075. Landlord stated in the release application that he was doing business from a tenanted shop and he had three sons whose names were Ashthbhuji, Sangam Lal and Kameshwar and one of his sons was doing business from a shop owned by the landlord. Both the courts below held that all the three sons were doing business from the shop owned by the landlord jointly, hence need was not bona fide.;