RADHEY SHYAM AGARWAL Vs. ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAKESH Sharma, J. Heard Sri S. M. K. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the landlord, petitioner and Sri M. S. Kotwal appearing for the tenant, opposite party No. 2.

(2.) THE petitioner has assailed the order dated 18-4-2002 passed by the appellate authority under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 28-9- 1999 allowing the release application filed by the landlord and ordering eviction of the tenant.

(3.) THE tenant, opposite party No. 2, opposed the application for release. His main thrust before the prescribed authority was that the petitioner is a big landlord and is having large number of properties at his disposal in the city of Lucknow. It was denied that the landlord was intending to carry on the Kirana business from the premises in question. THE opposite party No. 2 was an old tenant of the premises for the last 36-37 years. He faced Suit No. 354 of 1988 filed by the erstwhile owner Sri Lal Chand Rastogi in the year 1988, which was dismissed on 23-1-1992 by the concerned Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow. THE proceedings initiated by the landlord were under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. An additional written statement was also filed to demonstrate that kotharis Nos. 8 and 9 in the tenancy of opposite party No. 2 were in use as a single unit for residential purpose and the same cannot be released for business purposes.