- (1.) Smt.Dhanraji Debi and Jagdeo Shah Respondent no. 4 and 4 since dead represented by legal representatives) filed release application under Section 21 (1) (a), U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting , Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short called 'the Act' contending inter alia amongst others, that they required the shop described in the release application situate in Qasba Rasra (district Ballia) wherein Petitioners were tenants at the rate of Rs.43.75 paise per month on the ground that Jagdeo Shah had to quit Calcutta because of anti- Bengali movements and riots and that he required the shop in question for carrying on his own business along with his wife Smt. Dhanraji, Land Lord also filed an application (Annexure 2 to the petition) praying that an Amin be appointed by the Court for preparing site plan. Amin submitted a report dated 30th September 1983 (page 28 of the Writ Paper Book) alongwith site plan (page 32 of the writ paper book).
(2.) Tenants filed written statement and denied the case of the land lord as disclosed in the written statement. The tenant filed evidence in support of their case. Out of said evidence, only following documents have been filed with the writ petition :- 1. Affidavit of Kedar Nath dated Nil (Annexure IV) 2. Affidavit of Mahadev dated 21.12.1983 (Annexure -V) 3. Copy of the application dated 21.12.1983 praying for appointment of Advocate Commissioner (Annexure-VI) 4. Affidavit of Ram Ashish Pathak dated Nil (Annexure-VI). 5. Affidavit of Mohan Das Agarwal dated 16.2.1984 (Annexure VIII) The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application vide judgement and order dated 22nd February 1984 (Annexure -IX) on the ground that the need of the land lords was 'bonafide' and that land lord was to suffer more hardship as compared to the tenant. Judgement of the Prescribed Authority shows that tenant has been throghout pleading that one of the land lords (Jagdeo Shah) was old and he was not in a position to conduct business. It has also come in the order that the land lords had a minor daughter who was dependent on ;the income of her parents (Respondent nos. 3 and 4) and that land lord had hosiery licence and in a position to run the proposed business in the accommodation, in question. The Prescribed Authority also recorded a finding of fact that there is no shop as such on the southern side of the disputed shop as alleged by the tenant nor the said accommodation, could be used as show room proposed by the land lord. Tenant was using shop in question and engaged in business in the name of M/s Kedar Nath Machinery Stores. It was also found that tenants had one shop wherein 'gold and silver business' in the name and style off -M/s Kedar Nath Sarraf was being done and another business of cloth was being carried on in the name and style of M/s Mahadeo Ranchhjordas' in another shop.
(3.) The tenant had relied upon the Amin's report and the map prepared by him for pleading that case of the land lord was not to be accepted. The Prescribed Authority also referred to the affidavit of Mahadeo(son of the tenant) and also to the Amin's report with reference to the allegations contained in the said affidavit but did not find favour with ;the allegation made by the tenant. Consequently, Prescribed Authority allowed the release application of the land lord.;