Sangeeta Chandra, J. - (1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant praying for quashing of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, Judge Small Causes Court, Moradabad in P.A. Case No. 9 of 2008 (Dr. Omkar Nath Khanna vs Prabhat Kumar & Brothers and others) as well as the order dated 04.04.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Moradabad in Rent Control Appeal No. 17 of 2017.
(2.) Mr. Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has submitted that the petitioner carries out the business of manufacturing corrugated cardboard boxes from the shop situated at Rampur Road near Miglani Cinema in the city of Moradabad. The said shop is part of a huge premises owned by the landlord. There were two halls which were in the vacant possession of the landlord at the time when the release application was file. While one shop is under the tenancy of M/s Diesel Engineers, whose Rent Control Appeal against the release order is pending, there are two other shops, one under the tenancy of Shri Alok Mahajan and the second under the tenancy of Anil Motors, which are situated adjacent to petitioner's shop, which have been only recently vacated from their tenancy and are in the vacant possession of the landlord-respondent. However, the landlord-respondent filed a Release Application registered as P.A. Case No. 9 of 2008, under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 saying therein that the respondent-landlord was a Chief Medical Officer, who retired on 30.06.2001, and wished to pursue his medical profession by opening a clinic in the shop in question.
(3.) The tenant filed a written statement bringing on record the alternative accommodation available within the city of Kanpur to the respondent-landlord, and also stated clearly that in the same premises, where the tenant-petitioner's shop is situated, there were four other shops lying vacant that could be utilized by the respondent-landlord for setting up his clinic. It was also stated by the tenant that he had been doing his business of manufacturing corrugated Cardboard Boxes from the shop in dispute for the last about 33 years. Also other family members of respondent No. 3 were owners of the shop in question, and he had acquired ownership only on 21.01.2005, and he had no right to file the release application prior to expiry of three years as per the provisions of section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Later on, this contention was not pressed due to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Martin and Harris Ltd. vs. 6th Additional District Judge and others, 1998 1 SCC 732.;