- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 7-10-95 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the order dated 12-12-97 passed by the appellate Court.
(2.) THE relevant facts for the purposes of the prekent writ petition are that the father of petitioner No. 1 and husband of petitioner No. 2 Nathu Mai Agarwal was tenant of the shop situate on the ground floor of building No. 220, Ganj Bazar, Meerut Cantt, hereinafter referred to as the shop in dispute only. THE tenancy started in 1940. After the death of Nath Mai Agarwal, the petitioners became tenant of the shop in dispute. Respondent No. 3 Smt. Swadesh Ahluwalia is the landlady. The landlady applied under Section 21 (l) (a) of theu. P. Act No. l3 of l972. The need shown in the application was that her son Sanjeev Walia is aged 25 years. He has become invalid in an accident and the shop in dispute is required for his use and occupation. It was also stated that second son is also unemployed and his establishment is also necessary during the life time of the landlady. It was admitted in the application that Tarun Walia is partly employed in partnership firm of her hus band, namely, Satyakam and was getting only Rs. 1500 per month as salary. The petitioners contested the ap plication under Section 21 on a number of grounds. It was denied that Sanjeev Walia is a disabled person, rather it was stated that he is already working alongwith his father and doing business. The petitioners are carrying. on business in the accom modation in question. They have no source of income except from the shop in dispute. It was also stated that the Prescribed Authority Case No. 31 of 1980 was filed by the landlady before the Prescribed Authority on similar ground which was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority and the appeal filed by the landlady was also dismissed. Therefore, the present application is barred by prin ciple of resjudicata. It was further stated that the landlady had filed PA. Case No. 32 of 1980 against Shital Prasad on similar ground but that petition was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority and appeal filed by the landlady against that judgment was also dismissed. It is stated that husband of the landlady is also in occupation of shop No. 300, Kaisar Ganj, Meerut City and the major portion of the shop is in possession of the husband. Sanjeev Walia is also work ing in M/s. Satyakam Firm with his father and the family of the landlady is having several business i. e. the business of scooter agency, Agricultural implement, Agents of B. M. C. Engines, Distributors of Tractor geers for whole of U. P. and Rajasthan State, Agency of Auto parts of Ford Trac tors and all the family members are in voked in all these business. They require no further accommodation. It was also stated that there was a workshop in accom modation No. 240, South End Road, Meerut which is in possession of the hus band of the landlady.
(3.) THE parties filed evidence before the Prescribed Authority. THE Prescribed Authority on 7-10-95 allowed the applica tion of the landlady. THE petitioners filed an appeal against the judgment of the Prescribed Authority. It is stated that the petitioners filed an affidavit before the appellate Court that the landlady has con cealed the real fact regarding the availability of shops with her and in the affidavit it was also brought to the notice of the Court that respondent No. 2 got pos session of other shop in P. A. Case No. 142 of 1989 which was in possession of Shitla Prasad, therefore, the need of the landlady has been fulfilled. It is also stated that a Writ Petition No. 27187 of 1996 was filed against an interlocutory order which was allowed on 26-8-96. THE matter was remanded to the appellate Court to decide the same in the light of the observations made by the High Court. THE petitioners have filed that judgment as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioners have filed an application for inspection. THEy have also filed an af fidavit before the District Judge and docu ments to prove that Sanjeev Walia, and Tarun Walia are connected with number of family Firms. The appeal was dismissed on 12-12-97. The petitioners have challenged these two orders.;