PREM PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the 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) initiated by the father of the present petitioners praying for the release of the shop in building no. 33, Thatheri Bazar. Allahabad which had been rejected, the present petitioners have approached this Court seeking the quashing of the aforesaid orders.

(2.) THE facts, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of the present case are that an application praying for the release of the accommodation is dispute which was being utilised for business purposes by the tenant-respondent no. 3, since deceased, was filed by the father of the present petitioners asserting that the accommodation in dispute was required for the business purpose of M/s. Dakhlni Prasad Makhan Lal Agencies and M/s. Kallash Finance Company which were partnership business in which one or the other son and one or the other lady of the family of the original applicant were partners. It was asserted that the aforesaid two partnership businesses were being run for the time being from a room in the interior residential portion of house no, 33, Thatheri Bazar, Allahabad and to lack of space it was not possible to open show display and retail show-room of the above concerns. It was also asserted that M/s. Kailash Finance Company required an office-cum-visitors room and on account of lack of accommodation the business of the aforesaid two concerns was badly hampered and causing irreparable loss. THE landlord had assarted that the need for the accommodation in dispute was genuine, bonafide and pressing. It was also asserted that the tenant had a suitable alternative accommodation in the same vicinity where the building in question was situate and could shift his business without any difficulty. THE landlord further asserted that the hardship likely to be suffered by the tenant In the event of the grant of the release application would be much less as compared to the hardship likely to be suffered by the landlord in the event of the rejection of the application.

(3.) THUS, coming to the conclusion that the need of the landlord was not genuine and greater hardship was likely to be caused to the tenant if the application was allowed the release application, filed by the landlord was rejected,