A.N.DIKSHITA, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 23.11.1987 passed by VIIIth Additional District Judge, Varanasi, Respondent No. 1, in Rent Appeal No. 55 of 19876 and Cross Objection No. 65 of 1987.
(2.) THE facts encompassing the controversy are that respondent No. 3 Narendra Bahadur Singh is the landlord and owner of premises No. D-10 Mohalla Sakshi Vinayak, Varanasi. An application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter called the Act) was filed by respondent No. 3 for the release of the shop in occupation and possession of the petitioner in the premises in dispute on the ground that it was genuinely required by respondent No. 3 to establish the business of selling Rudrakash Mala, poojan samagri etc. and for further continuing his profession of urine therapy. It was alleged that the shop in dispute was previously occupied by one Vishwanath Prasad, father of the petitioner, as a tenant. Vishwanath Prasad expired in September, 1979. Vishwanath Prasad had four sons, three of them having their shops in the vicinity and the petitioner was being settled in the shop in dispute as sole tenant after the death of Vishwanath Prasad. On the demise of Vishwanath Prasad in September, 1979, it is alleged by the petitioner that a new tenancy was created in favour of the petitioner with the consent of other heirs of Vishwanath Prasad on a monthly rent of Rs. 120 besides Rs. 15 per month as water-tax and Rs. 25 per month as conservancy charges. It is further alleged that respondent No. 3 claiming to be a urine therapist consumes his own urine and massages his body with it for medicinal purposes. Respondent No. 3 being qualified in urine therapy treats various patients at his house bearing premises No. CK-58/55 Chowk, Varanasi, but on account of this profession the relations of respondent No. 3 with his family members became strained and they insisted him to shift to some other place. Even the financial assistance provided by the sons of respondent No. 3 to him had been stopped due to which the finance of respondent No. 3 had depleted and he required the shop in dispute for pursuing his profession as none in the town is willing to provide accommodation to respondent No. 3 for the said purpose. He having no option compellingly took steps to get it vacated. The shop in dispute being owned by respondent No. 3 was found by him to be more suitable for establishing himself in the said profession and for starting the business of selling Rudrakash Mala, poojan samagri etc. and his profession of urine therapy.
(3.) OBJECTIONS to the said application for release of the shop in dispute were filed by the petitioner on the ground that his father Vishwanath Prasad was a permanent lessee of the shop with a right of succession to his heirs from generation to generation by virtue of a registered lease deed dated 1.4.1966, executed by respondent No. 3 in favour of Vishwanath Prasad, father of the petitioner. On the death of Vishwanath Prasad his heirs including the petitioner inherited the tenancy rights as tenants in common though the rent was being paid by the petitioner. The allegation regarding strained relations of respondent No. 3 with his family members were repudiated and it was alleged that premises No. CK-58/54 and CK-58/55 situated in Mohalla Ash Bhairo had sufficient accommodation where respondent No. 3 can start his alleged business. It was also contended by the petitioner that the house owned by him in Mohalla August Kund is far away from the main road being situate in the narrow lane and as such was not suitable for the carrying on any business. The petitioner in his objections also narrated the past conduct of respondent No. 3 alleging that premises No. D-10/17 and D-10/17-A were originally owned by respondent No. 3 but to avoid taxes the promises was renumbered as D-10/17 and D-10/17-A and the latter was given by respondent No. 3 to his wife Smt. Lakshmi Devi though he is himself managing the same. Earlier certain proceedings for the release were initiated under the provisions of U.P. Act III of 1947 but such proceedings culminated in a compromise between respondent No. 3 and the petitioner Vishwanath Prasad whereby some part of the tenanted portion was surrendered. It was also alleged by the petitioner in his objections that in a big hall-cum-shop of premises No. CK-58/55 the respondent No. 3 is carrying on the business of Saris in the name and style of Ambika Saree House and in the other shop business in the name and style of Deep Saris is being carried. It was admitted that CK-58/55 having two big halls and five rooms is in the possession of respondent No. 3, respondent No. 3 had also constructed two more big rooms in the said premises in April, 1984. The need of respondent No. 3 was thus described and it was alleged that there is sufficient accommodation in premises No. CK-58/55 where respondent No. 3 can carry on the proposed business and pursue the profession. Another house had been constructed by respondent No. 3 in Jawahar Nagar Colony though he got it recorded in the name of the wife of his son Balwant Singh. It was also alleged by the petitioner that Jai Singh, son of respondent No. 3, is carrying on business in the name and style of Jai Traders on the ground floor of premises No. D-13/17-A while the first floor of premises No. D-10/17 comprising of two big rooms, kitchen etc is occupied by the said Jai Singh for his residence. It was further alleged that premises No. D-10/17 and D-10/17-A are four storeyed buildings. There is a big hall in the tenancy of one Hari Prasad Gupta while on the first floor there was a shop in the tenancy of Om Prakash Dhanuka, and another in the tenancy of Lok Nath Babuna and one big hall in the tenancy of Jagdish Prasad Madhesia. A big hall which was earlier in occupation of Jai Singh had been vacated by him and had been lying vacant. The shop in dispute was the only source of the livelihood of the petitioner and the need of respondent No. 3 was neither genuine nor pressing.;