Mahendra Dayal, J. - (1.) The landlord-petitioners, having lost from both the courts below, have approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 12.02.2009, passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting their release application and the judgment and order dated 28.10.2009, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.4, District Lakhimpur Kheri dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the Prescribed Authority.
(2.) The father-in-law of the petitioner No.1 and grand-father of the petitioner No.2, namely, Ramzan filed an application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 stating therein that he was the owner and landlord of a shop, in which, the opposite parties were tenants. It was said that his only son, namely, Raees died about fourteen years back and his widow and daughter had been living with him. It was also stated that since the daughter of his son was a matured girl, therefore, family expenses had increased. The deceased son was carrying on business of selling vegetables, but after his death, the business had stopped. The disputed shop was in occupation of Puttan on a monthly rent of Rs.400/-, but after his death in the year 2004, the opposite parties sublet the said shop to Hafiz. It was further stated by Ramzan that he wanted to start his own business in the disputed shop with the help of his daughter-in-law and grand-daughter, but for want of accommodation, the business could not be established. It was also pleaded by him that in case the disputed shop is not released, the petitioners would suffer greater hardship as compared to the opposite parties, who have already sublet the shop to some other persons. The petitioners several times asked the respondents to vacate the shop and hand over its possession, but without any result. A notice was also served upon the respondents, but in-spite of service of notice, the shop was not vacated.
(3.) The respondents filed their objections and admitted the petitioners as their owner and landlord. It was also admitted that Puttan was tenant in the disputed shop. He was carrying on business of selling vegetables, but after his death, the respondents were carry on business in the disputed shop, which was the only source of their income. They also denied subletting of the shop to Hafiz. The need of the petitioners was also denied. It was also said that the daughter-in-law of Ramzan had no need of the shop. The petitioners had two more shops and go-downs and all these premises have been let out to different tenants. One of the tenants, namely, Hafiz-Ullah had already vacated the shop in his occupation, but the petitioners, instead of starting their own business in the said shop, let out the same to one Hafiz on higher rent. The only object of the petitioners was to somehow get the shop vacated and let out the same on higher rent. It was also said that after the petitioners refused to accept the rent, the rent was being deposited in the Court.;