S.D.Agarwala- - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U. P. Act no. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE property in dispute is a shop bearing municipal no. 2/653/3 situate on Fort Road, Saharanpur. One Sri Mangal Sen was the original tenant of the said property. THE petitioners no. 2 to 6 are his heirs. THEreafter the property was taken on rent by the petitioner no. 1 Prem Prakash Dhawan on a monthly rent of Rs. 125/- per mensum. THE landlords of the said property are Mr. J. B. Dias, Mrs. M. P. Jackson, Mrs. S. M Howard and Mr. P. R. D. Jackson. THEy moved an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for release of the accommodation on the ground of personal need. Mr. J. B. Dias is the maternal uncle of Mrs. M. P. Jackson and Mrs. S. M. Howard. He will be referred to as the applicant no. 1 hereinafter. Mrs. M. P. Jackson is the wife of Mr. P. R. D. Jackson and sister of Mrs. S. M. Howard. She will be referred to hereinafter as applicant no. 2. Mrs. S. M. Howard is the sister of Mrs. M. P. Jackson and wife of Mr. B. A. Howard and will be hereinafter referred to as applicant no. 3. Mr. P. R. D. Jackson, the husband of applicant no. 2 shall be hereinafter referred to as applicant no. 4. Applicants 1 to 4 are respondents 3 to 6 in the present petition. The release application was filed by applicants 1 to 4 setting up the need of all the applicants. It was stated that applicant no. 1 is a retired person and was residing in Canada when the application was filed. It was stated that he was expected to come to Saharanpur and reside in the house there and that since he has no business of his own, he will join in the general marchandise business with applicant no. 4.
(3.) THE applicant no. 2 set up a case that she is a trained beautician and she wants to establish a Beauty Parlour in a portion of the accommodation in dispute. In the other portion, it is alleged that her husband applicant no. 4 who was then serving in the Indian Air Force as Flying Officer was to retire shortly at the time of filing of the release application, and consequently, it was alleged that the accommodation will be needed to settle applicant no. 4 in some business after retirement from Air Force and that he intends to open a general marchandise shop in the disputed accommodation. So far applicant no. 3 is concerned, her case was that her husband is a Squadron Leader in the Indian Air Force. He was likely to retire and that the accommodation is required for opening a proposed business. In fact he was to join in the general merchandise business along with applicant no. 1 and 4.;