Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.)By means of the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has called in question the order dated 10.1.2017 passed by Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 3/1991 and the order dated 17.10.2018 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Amroha in Rent Control Appeal No. 1/2017.
(2.)Although the proceedings arises out of a release application filed by the respondent-landlady under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for short 'the Act'), but the case has a chequered history. The release application was filed by the landlady Smt. Kelawati, deceased, in the year 1991, setting up need of Rajendra Kumar, her eldest son for establishing him in business of selling medicines. The release application was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 29.9.1995.The matter was carried in appeal, but the appeal also came to be dismissed by order dated 29.9.1998. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-landlady Smt. Kelawati filed Writ Petition No. 5099 of 1999 before this Court, which was allowed by judgment dated 30.3.2006. The Court allowed the release application holding the need of Rajendra Kumar for the shop in dispute to be genuine and bona fide and that he would suffer greater hardship in case, the shop is not released in his favour. The petitioner carried the matter in Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave and the Special Leave Petition came to be registered as Civil Appeal No. 2559 of 2008. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by order dated 7.4.2008 and set-aside the judgment of the High Court on the ground that certain fresh evidence was brought on record before the writ Court and upon which reliance was placed in allowing the release application, though the proper course for this Court should have been to remand the matter to the Prescribed Authority to take into consideration the documents filed for the first time before the writ Court. Pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 7.4.2008, the matter was again taken up for consideration by the Prescribed Authority and it allowed the release application by judgment and order dated 5.5.2011. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-tenant filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act. The appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant was allowed by the Appellate Court by order dated 19.1.2016 and the matter was remitted to the Prescribed Authority for considering certain affidavits and documentary evidence filed by the parties before the Appellate Court. In consequence, once again the matter was taken up for decision by the Prescribed Authority, which by impugned order dated 10.1.2017 allowed the release application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal, which has been dismissed by impugned judgment and order dated 17.10.2018.
(3.)The basic facts, which are not in dispute, are that the respondent-landlady (since dead) had three sons. The eldest son is Rajendra Kumar in respect of whose need the release application was filed against the petitioner. At the relevant time, the other two sons were studying. Apart from the disputed shop, there are two other shops in the same building. One of the shops was in possession of the husband of the landlady from where he was doing his business after retirement. The third shop was in possession of another tenant. The husband of the landlady died during pendency of the proceedings. It is also an admitted fact on record that the other shop, which was in possession of another tenant was vacated by him. Thus, two shops in vacant condition became available to the landlady. The landlady settled her sons Devendra Kumar and Satyendra Kumar in these shops, as by that time, they had completed their education and were sitting idle. Devendra Kumar started business in one of the shops in the name of M/s. Varun Communications whereas, Satyendra Kumar started doing business in the other shop in the name of M/s. Varun Tiles.