Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Brij Raj Singh, learned counsel for the defendants petitioners/ tenants.
(2.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 19.01.2013 in P.A. Case No.106 of 2010 passed by the Prescribed Authority/ Judge Small Cause Court, Jhansi and the judgment dated 20.09.2017 in Rent Control Appeal No.06 of 2013 (Smt. Teekamgarh Wali Vidhwa and two others vs. Smt. Mithla Devi) passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Jhansi.
(3.) Facts in brief are that the plaintiff-respondent No.3/ landlady had purchased a House No.133, Bahar Saiyar Gate, Jhansi by a registered sale deed dated 28.02.1978 in which husband of the defendant petitioner No.1 and father of the defendants- petitioners No.2 and 3, was a tenant occupying a shop situate in the front portion of the aforesaid house. According to the plaintiff-respondent No.3/ landlady, an intimation was given to the aforesaid original tenant namely Sri Balkishan Rajak regarding purchase of the house. At the time of purchase of the house, sons of the plaintiff-respondent No.3/ landlady were minor. Now they have attained majority. The second son of the plaintiff-respondent No.3/ landlady namely Sri Chanchal @ Sudhir Sahu aged about 32 years, has been married and he has one daughter. The aforesaid P.A. Case No.106 of 2010 was filed on the ground of bona fide need for start of business by him in the disputed shop. The plaintiff-respondent No.3/ landlady has set up a case that she is in bona fide need of the disputed shop for his son Sudhir Sahu to start his own business. It was pleaded that the petitioners/ tenants have their own shop near Kalari at Bahar Saiyar Gate, Jhansi. It was also pleaded that the respondent No.3/ landlady is ready to pay two years' rent also to the defendants-petitioners/ tenants. Evidences were led by the parties which were considered by the Prescribed Authority while passing the impugned order dated 19.01.2013. The Prescribed Authority recorded finding of fact that the plaintiff-respondent No.3/ landlady is in bona fide need of the disputed shop. He also found the comparative hardship in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No.3/ landlady. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority dated 19.01.2013, the defendants petitioners/ tenants filed Rent Control Appeal No.06 of 2013, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 20.09.2017. The Appellate Court considered in detail the submissions and the evidences as well as findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority, and, found no error therein. Aggrieved with the aforesaid two judgments and orders, the defendants-petitioners/ tenants have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;