J.C. Mishra, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed against the order dated 31.5.1989 passed by VIIIth Additional District Judge, Aligarh allowing appeal preferred by the tenant reversing the judgment and order dated 25.10.1986 passed by Prescribed Authority (Munsif Haveli, Aligarh) under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act for convenience) and rejecting the application filed by the landlord -petitioners. The petitioners filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act for release of shop in dispute on the ground of personal need of one of the landlords namely Umesh Chand. It was averred that Umesh Chand was out of employment and he needed the shop in question for carrying out general merchandise business.
(2.) THE opposite party tenant resisted the application on the ground, inter alia, that the wife of Umesh Chand was employed as nurse in Government hospital and her income was sufficient for maintaining the entire family. The application was not bona fide and was filed only to seek his eviction. He was carrying out cloth business in the shop in dispute for a period of forty years. The landlords had a shop at Shobna Road which is accommodation and could be utilised for carrying out business but instead of carrying out business the landlords let it out to Dr. Suresh Chandra Sharma. The parties were given opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence. The Prescribed Authority on appraisal of the evidence held that the shop in question was bonafidely needed by the landlord to enable Umesh Chand to carry out business in general merchandise. The objection that income of the wife was sufficient to maintain the entire family was repelled.
(3.) REGARDING the alternative accommodation it was held that it was not shop but a residential house and was in possession of Dr. R.D. Khan who lived in it along with his family members. The Prescribed Authority also considered the comparative need of Umesh Chand and the tenant and held that the tenant sold cloth as hawker and not in the shop in question. He made no attempt to arrange another shop. With these findings the learned Prescribed Authority allowed the application and directed the tenant to hand over vacant possession within a month.;