MUNNI LAL Vs. DEVI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajeev Trivedi, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the record. The petitioner Munni Lal filed release application under section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"), which was registered as Case No. 42/70 of 1990 on the ground that his son Vinod Kumar is unemployed and require to be settled in a business, therefore, shop in question, which is under tenancy of respondent, be released. The application was allowed by Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 16.5.1996 recording a finding that admittedly, son of landlord, Munni Lal, is unemployed and, therefore, need set up is genuine and bona fide, which reads as under:

(2.) In respect of comparative hardship also, he has found that same lie in favour of landlord. But, on appeal, preferred by respondent-tenant, Special Judge vide judgment dated 5.8.2008, has allowed the same by observing that now Munni Lal is very old and Vinod Kumar also must be in the age group of 60-61 and he is running business in a big shop of cloth belong to Munni Lal. In order to record this finding that shop of Munni Lal is being run by Vinod Kumar, he has not referred to any evidence at all.

(3.) Despite repeated query, learned Counsel appearing for respondent-tenant also could not tell as to what such evidence was on record which proved that Vinod Kumar was actually running business in the shop belonging to Munni Lal. In fact, respondent-tenant has not even pleaded this fact and what he has said is that Munni Lal runs a big shop of cloth in which his son Vinod Kumar is also sitting. This is evident from the order of Prescribed Authority, which reads as under: