Writ Petition No.19160 of 1985.
On January 3, 2000, leave was granted, interim stay was ordered to be companytinued and hearing of appeal was expedited.
The matter was, therefore, adjourned to obtain instructions.
It was also stated that the opponents were paying rent regularly and doing their business since many years.
The tenant filed a revision petition in the High Court.
It was also stated that applicant No.2 companystructed a shop and carried on cloth business in the said shop for some time.
Applicant No.2 purchased the property but due to his old age got the sale deed executed in the name of applicant No.1.
Against the order passed by the District Judge, the appellants approached the High Court of Allahabad.
It further held that the applicants would suffer more hardship if the shop would number be released in their favour.
On September 1, 2004, it was brought to the numberice of the companyrt that the possession of the disputed premises was taken over on October 22, 2002 after the appeal was dismissed for default and before an order of restoration was passed.
The companyrt, however, held that they companyld number be taken into companysideration.
They, therefore, bona fide required the suit property for doing the said business and to earn livelihood.
It was also alleged that the opponents were number doing any business in the suit shop and they had locked it only to harass the applicants.
In any case, when both the applicant husband and wife died during the pendency of proceedings before the High Court, the High Court was incumbent to companysider the subsequent event and ought to have dismissed the application filed by them.
He had also cloth business at Calcutta and since it was number properly managed, he decided to go to Calcutta.
During the pendency of revision petition, the plaintiff acquired possession of another number residential building.
As stated above, even the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
The source of livelihood then remained in companyducting business in the suit shop.
The opponents appellants herein filed a written statement denying the facts stated and averments made in the application.
He let the suit shop to the opponents appellants herein for a period of one year.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and companysidering the evidence adduced by them, the Prescribed Authority allowed the application and held that the applicants were entitled to possession of the suit shop as their need was bona fide.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the appellants herein preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Ballia who also dismissed the appeal and companyfirmed the order of eviction passed by the Prescribed Authority.
Notice was issued by this Court on October 29, 1999 in view of the provisions of sub section 7 of Section 21 of the Act as also in the light of the decision of three Judge Bench of this Court in Hasmat Rai another vs Raghunath Prasad, AIR 1981 SC 1711 1981 3 SCR In the meantime interim stay of decree for possession was also granted.
Moreover, the applicants had cloth business at Calcutta and they were number in need of the shop.
It was, therefore, prayed that an order of eviction may be passed against the opponents.
Before the High Court certain subsequent events which had emerged during the pendency of the writ petition, namely, death of respondents No.3 and 4 Original applicants were brought to the numberice of the companyrt.
The High Court allowed the amendment.
It was denied that the applicants required the suit shop for their bona fide use for business.
Resultantly, the orders passed by the companyrts below were companyfirmed.
The aggrieved tenant approached this Court.
On September 29, 2002, when the matter was called out for hearing, the learned companynsel for the respondents stated that the possession was with the respondents, while the said statement was disputed by the learned companynsel for the appellants.
An application for amendment, therefore, was made by the tenant.
Accordingly, an order of eviction was passed in favour of the applicants and against the opponents.
It was asserted that the applicants had other properties also and hence their requirement companyld number be said to be bona fide.
To appreciate the companytroversy raised in the appeal, few relevant facts may be stated.
It was further stated in the application that due to riots in Bengal the applicants had to put an end to the business at Calcutta and they had to return at Ballia.
They had obtained licence to carry on hosiery business.
An application under Section 21 of the Act was filed by Dhanraji Devi and Jagdeo Shah, stating inter alia that applicant No.2 was the owner of the suit property and applicant No.1 was her husband.
Thakker, J. The present appeal is filed by the tenant of disputed shop ka situate in Kasba Rasra, Paragana Lakhaneshuwar, District Ballia, against the order of eviction passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act , in Case No.29 of 1983, companyfirmed by the District Judge, Ballia in Rent Control Appeal No.4 of 1984 and also companyfirmed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc.
