J.C.Gupta, J. - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition which is directed against the judgment and order of respondent No. 1, the Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal filed by landlord-respondent No. 2 has been allowed.
(2.) The dispute relates to a shop situated at 6, Johnstenganj, Allahabad, wherein undisputedly the petitioner has been carrying on business under the name and style of 'Bharat Opticians' for the last about 50 years as tenant of respondent No. 2. The landlord moved an application before the Prescribed Authority under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The need shown therein was that one of the grandsons of the landlord, namely, Sumit Sachdeva was doing his M.B.B.S. course in a medical college at Mangalore and after completing the said course, he would set up his clinic in the disputed shop, and since landlord has not in his occupation any vacant accommodation, his requirement for the disputed shop was genuine and pressing. The release application was contested by the petitioner, inter alia, on a number of grounds. It was pleaded that the landlord, being a big landlord, has extensive properties in his occupation in Johnstenganj as well as in other areas of Allahabad city. It was also stated that the landlord's grandson. Dr. Sumit Sachdeva had no intention to settle down at Allahabad for doing medical practice here and in any case, his future need could not be a ground for releasing the shop in favour of the landlord. He also pleaded that he has earned a goodwill in the disputed shop and would suffer irreparable injury in case he is ousted from the shop. Undisputedly during the pendency of the proceedings, after completing course at Mangalore, Dr. Sumit Sachdeva had left for America and when this fact was brought to the notice of the authorities below, the landlord came up with the case that Dr. Sumit Sachdeva has gone there only for further studies, while according to the tenant-petitioner, he has settled down there permanently with his uncle and aunt who were already engaged there in medical profession. It was further pointed out by the tenant that the landlord and his son (father of Sumit Sachdeva) were already engaged in flourishing business of hotel and restaurant and there was no requirement for them of any additional business.
(3.) The Prescribed Authority by the order dated 28.8.1993 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) rejected the landlord's application on the ground that there were 19 rooms in 'Raj Hotel' and space was also available in 'Ginza Restaurant' in the ground floor which was not being used as part of restaurant. Therefore, if the landlord really needed any space for the purpose of establishing clinic for his grandson, the said, accommodations could well be utilized for that purpose without disrupting the occupation of the petitioner from the tenanted shop it was further found that as per the own case of the landlord, the hotel and restaurant business of 'Koko Hotel' and 'Novelty Restaurant' had been closed long back and, therefore, those premises were also available to the landlord for satisfying the alleged need of his grandson for opening a clinic. The Prescribed Authority further held that upto the date of decision of the application, Sumit Sachdeva had not come back to India and, therefore, his future need could not be relevant while considering the application for release moved under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act.;