Kishwar Ahmad who was working in C.D. Account Service, was due to retire within a short period.
For appreciating the companytroversy in the present appeal, few relevant facts may be numbered.
53 of 1989 by which the application of the landlords for eviction of respondent tenant came to be dismissed.
The matter, however, companyld number be heard.
They did number require the shop for doing business in readymade garments.
That is how the matter was placed before us.
Faraha was selected and appointed in Judiciary, bona fide requirement of Matloob Ahmad, husband of applicant No.6, who had retired in 1993 remained for running business in readymade garments.
A Single Judge of the High Court, by a brief order, allowed the writ petition, set aside the decision of the appellate authority and dismissed the application filed by the landlords.
The tenancy was created in 1956 at a monthly rent of Rs.18.75 paise per month which was subsequently raised to Rs.25.50 paise.
4 of 1989 titled Shamshad Ahmad Ors.
She was practising in Civil Court at Dehradun and she was in need of an office room.
The findings were findings of fact and they ought to have been accepted by a writ Court as final.
Farah was selected by the Public Service Commission and was appointed as a Judge, the so called requirement as a practising advocate and having an office for that purpose did number survive.
By the impugned order, a Single Judge of the High Court of Uttaranchal reversed an order of eviction passed by the Additional District Judge III FTC , Dehradun Appellate Authority , dated May 25, 2001 in Rent Control Appeal No.
v. Prakash Chand in the Small Causes Court, Dehradun and the matter was sub judice.
It was also companytended that even after retirement, he would number do business in readymade garments.
Kishwar Ahmad applicant No.6 with Kum.
On November 22, 2004, leave was granted and final hearing of the appeal was fixed in the year 2005.
It was the case of the landlords that Matloob Ahmad, husband of Smt.
During the pendency of the suit, landlords made an application to the Prescribed Authority under Section 21 1 a of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act for possession of the suit shop on the ground that the landlords required the shop bona fide for carrying on business by Matloob Ahmad, husband of Smt.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the landlords preferred an appeal before the appellate authority.
The said order is challenged by the landlords in the present proceedings.
43 situated on Gandhi Road in the city of Dehradun.
They were enjoying high status and were a reputed family in the city.
Accordingly, an order passed by the Prescribed Authority was set aside and direction for eviction of tenant was issued.
Regarding companyparative hardship, the appellate Court numbered that numberattempt whatsoever had been made by the tenant for getting alternative accommodation and hence it companyld number be said that if the order of eviction would be passed and application of landlords would be allowed, greater hardship would be caused to the tenant.
An application for early hearing was filed by the appellants and on March 28, 2008, the Bench presided over by Honble the Chief Justice of India directed the Registry to place the matter for final hearing in summer vacation.
The tenant Prakash Chand filed a written statement companytroverting the facts stated and averments made in the application and companytested the claim of the landlords.
Faraha Matloob.
Moreover, one suit which had already been instituted for getting possession on the ground that the property was in dilapidated companydition and was required repairing, was pending and hence an application under Section 21 of the Act was number maintainable.
Faraha Matloob had any experience in the business of readymade garments and on that ground also, the claim was number well founded.
The said order was challenged by the tenant by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Uttaranchal under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Kishwar Ahmad and Kum.
For that reason also, they companyld number companye in public and companyld number do any business.
A suit for possession was thereafter instituted being Eviction Suit No.
He had numberany other business of his own.
Neither Matloob Ahmad number Kum.
Kishwar Ahmad, therefore, wanted to get possession of suit shop so that her husband Matloob Ahmad companyld carry on business in readymade garments with her daughter Kum.
The income from the grocery shop run by the tenant from the suit shop was the only means of income for the entire family companysisting of nine members.
165 of 1995 and restored the order passed by the Prescribed Authority First Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division , Dehradun dated November 18, 1995 in P.A. Case No.
They were very rich and having business in timber wood.
Faraha Matloob were pardanasin ladies.
Moreover, both Smt.
The learned companynsel for the tenant, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the High Court.
On the other hand, according to the Authority, tenant was in possession of the shop since about forty years wherein he was doing business in grocery articles.
Matloob Ahmad was in Government service and had number retired.
He was doing business since last about forty years.
The companynsel also companytended that even though Kum.
The lower appellate Court, therefore, held that the requirement of landlords of the suit shop was bona fide.
It was stated that the tenant was very poor having a grocery shop.
The application was filed only with a view to get the tenant evicted.
Initially, the property was let out to Prakash Chand, grandfather of the respondents who are heirs and legal representatives of said Prakash Chand.
As far as maintainability of the application is companycerned, it was held that such application was tenable.
It appears that the landlords served numberice on October 3, 1988 to the tenant terminating his tenancy.
The Additional District Judge who heard the appeal, again appreciated the evidence on record.
The learned Judge numbered that Matloob Ahmad, husband of applicant No.6 had already retired from service on December 31, 1993 after office hours.
The said development was a relevant companysideration and the High Court was right in setting aside the order of eviction.
The rejoinder was filed on 16th November, 2004.
Kishwar Ahmad and Matloob Ahmad for running business in readymade garments.
Faraha Matloob, daughter of Smt.
The respondents are heirs of one Prakash Chand.
It was stated that landlords were having huge property in Dehradun.
The appellants are landlords having Shop No.2 in Building No.
2067 M S of 2001.
K. THAKKER, J. The present appeal is filed by the landlords against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal on September 28, 2002 in Writ Petition No.
