Civil Judge Senior Division , Nagina.
34997 of 2000 before the High Court of judicature at Allahabad, and said petition, after hearing the parties, was dismissed.
It is pleaded by her that she has three sons and four daughters apart from her husband in the family, and her hardship is more than that of the appellant.
Hence these appeals are before us.
The appellant further pleaded that he needed the shop in question to establish his son Amit Kumar in the business by opening a General Merchant Shop in it.
Brief facts of the case are that the present appellant landlord filed an application under Section 21 1 a of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter referred as U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 against the respondent Sumitra Devi tenant for release of the shop in question situated in Shivaji Market Chhota Bazar , Shyohara, District Bijnor, before the Prescribed Authority Addl.
It is pleaded on behalf of the appellant that the respondent was tenant of the appellant in the shop on rent Rs.125/ per month.
9 of 1999 before Additional District Judge, Bijnor, and said Authority after hearing the parties vide its order dated 23rd April, 2000 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority Addl.
By way of amendment on 11th August, 1995 respondent further took the plea that during the pendency of the proceedings, Jayanti Prasad, brother of the appellant had filed proceedings No.6 of 1987 against Chaturpal Gupta husband of the respondent on personal ground of necessity and said application has been allowed against which the appeal is pending.
It is also pointed out by the respondent in her pleading that earlier suit No.
It is also pleaded by the appellant that actually husband of the respondent is running the business in another shop of shoes belonging to one of his relatives.
Aggrieved by the said order dated 23rd April, 2000, the appellant filed Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No.
Lastly, it is pleaded by the respondent that the respondent has attempted to search another shop but the same was number available near the disputed shop.
The respondent tenant companytested the application for release of the accommodation and denied the allegations companytained in it.
Civil Judge S.D , Nagina.
It is also alleged that the appellant actually wants enhancement of rent, and the answering respondent is ready to pay Rs.300/ per month instead of Rs.125/ per month as rent.
In reply to the amended plea of the respondent, the appellant pleaded that even if the application of his brother Jayanti Prasad is allowed, it does number fulfill the necessity of the appellant and his son for the shop in question.
The affidavits were exchanged and after recording evidence and hearing the parties, the Prescribed Authority accepted the case of the appellant landlord and allowed the application for release of shop in his favour vide order dated 21st September, 1999 against which the tenant present respondent Sumitra Devi filed Rent Control Appeal No.
Civil Judge S.D. , Nagina.
It is also alleged by the appellant that vide numberice dated 11th March, 1985, the appellant asked the respondent to vacate the premises occupied by her as the same was required by the landlord appellant as above, and since the respondent did number vacate the shop, the application for release of the shop was moved by the appellant before the Prescribed Authority Addl.
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. Leave granted.
It is further stated by her that the need of the appellant is number genuine.
These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 12th October, 2006 passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc.
198 of 1980 Krishna Kumar vs. Sumitra Devi was instituted by the appellant for vacation of the shop, and when he failed in it, the present proceeding has been drawn.
Writ Petition No.34997 of 2000 whereby the writ petition filed by the landlord has been dismissed, and the order dated 13th February, 2012 passed on Review Application No.225618 of 2006, whereby the said application has also been rejected.
It is further stated by her that the respondent through her son sells shoes in the shop, and does number use the shop as store, as alleged by the appellant.
