Poonam Srivastav - (1.) THE writ petition is taken up in the revised list. Shri Manish Tandon learned counsel for the petitioners is present. None present for the respondent tenant.
(2.) DESPITE time having been granted on several occasions, no counter-affidavit has been filed so far. On 10th April, 2009, this Court directed to list this case peremptorily on 21.4.2009. The case is on the list continuously. In the circumstances, I proceed to hear Shri Manish Tandon learned counsel for the petitioners. A release application was filed on 14th July, 1995 by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short referred to as the Act), for eviction of tenant from the accommodation situated on the ground floor of property No. 33/198-B, Mani Ram Bagia, Kanpur Nagar, comprising of three rooms, two dalans and one aangan, which was let out at monthly rent of Rs. 232.30 including taxes. The release application was filed on the ground that the accommodation in tenancy of the tenant, has come in the share of petitioner No. 1 by virtue of family settlement. He is doing business of clothes including lungi, Towels etc. in a rented shop in premises No. 33/198-A, Mani Ram Bagia, Kanpur in the name and style of M/s. Mohan Lal Murari Lal. This accommodation No. 33/198-A, Mani Ram Bagia Kanpur, was a part of joint family property, but, subsequently, after the family settlement, it has come in the share of petitioner's brother Shri Ram Narain Gupta. The petitioners are paying rent to him for occupation of the said accommodation for storing their stocks as they have paucity of accommodation. Some stocks are also kept on the road which causes considerable damages to the said stocks.
(3.) THE petitioners are doing wholesale business of stationary books etc. and tenanted accommodation is used as godown. Number of documents were moved in support of the release application to establish the extent of business and the accommodation for storage etc. is required by the petitioner. The landlord's contention is that except two affidavits, no evidence was brought on record before the prescribed authority. The release application was allowed by the prescribed authority on 4th March, 1998 and the prescribed authority directed the tenants to vacate the premises within one month. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the tenant preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act, which was registered as Rent Appeal No. 71 of 1998, Shri Bal Krishna Khandelwal v. Shri Shyam Narain Gupta and others.;