He alleged that the family of the landlady was very rich as her husband was in possession of a big shopping companyplex at Kala Aam Ka Churaha, Bulandshahr near D.M. Colony Road.
That apart, the husband of the landlady had companystructed large motor Workshop having plinth area of 1717 sq.
The appellant further alleged that the purpose of getting release of disputed shop was need for starting business of repair of fire arms whereas the same business is being run by the husband of the landlady from the aforesaid two shops.
The case of the landlady was that the disputed shop was number suitable for the purpose of carrying on business of repair of fire arms and that earlier the licence of the shop M s B.A. Shastra Bhandar was in the name of one Shamshuddin, sisters son of the husband of the landlady, on whose death, Sri Shamshad Ahmad, for whose need the release application had been moved, was carrying on the business of repair of fire arms with his father, i.e., husband of the landlady from the aforesaid two shops.
Sans unnecessary details factual position is as follows Late Ram Govil was tenant of a shop situated at Ansari Road, Bulandshahr since 1941.
She took the stand that the claim was number bona fide and genuine and the release application has been moved with the mal intention of harassing him.
In another affidavit, the appellant stated that he was running the disputed shop and that he had numberother source of livelihood and in case he was evicted from the shop, he would have to suffer greater hardship than the landlady.
Against the order in appeal, aforesaid, the landlady preferred Civil Misc.
The release application was companytested by the appellant tenant by filing written statement and denying the stand.
The appellant claimed that he being a medical practitioner, he has his chamber in the disputed shop wherefrom his son Kumar Govil was carrying on the business as optician and that the situation of the disputed shop was perfect for his above business as there was numberother shop of opticians in the vicinity.
On remand, the appellate authority reheard the appeal and decided the same vide judgment and order dated 21.04.2001 holding that the landlady herself had offered an alternate shop to the tenant but the appellant refused to take possession of the alternative shop offered by her with a view to remain in possession over the disputed shop.
During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant tenant died and was substituted by the legal heirs.
She moved release application No.
The prescribed authority vide judgment and order dated 08.05.1986 allowed the release application of the landlady and directed for eviction of the tenant appellant.
In support of his case, the appellant filed his own affidavit stating therein that son of the landlady was carrying on the business of repair of fire arms with his father i.e. husband of the landlady in two shops along with first basement in Chowk Bazar near Ansari Road, Bulandshahr.
Maqsoodan purchased the aforesaid shop on 11.12.1979 from Sri Ganesh Datt, the erstwhile landlord.
Challenge in the writ petition was to the order passed by the Prescribed Authority as affirmed by the Appellate Authority allowing the release application of the respondent No.1 landlady.
yards.
R.C. 31 of 1984 under Section 21 1 a of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 in short the Act for the need of her son Shamshad Ahmad.
9858 of 1998 before the Allahabad High Court, which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 13.10.1998 and the matter was remanded to the appellate companyrt with the observation that the appellate companyrt shall decide the appeal afresh on merits after taking into companysideration the material subsequent events.
Aggrieved by the above mentioned orders of the prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court, the appellant filed a writ petition.
It was also alleged that the landlady was in possession of two other shops, having basement as well situated at Ansari Road, Near Chowk Bazar which were in the use and occupation of Sri Imtiaz Ahmad, husband of the landlady.
The son of the tenant Sri Rishi Kumar Govil also filed his affidavit stating therein that his father was a medical practitioner and he was carrying on the business as optician from the disputed shop.
Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the prescribed authority declaring vacancy.
However, in appeal, the order was upset.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant.
The appellant also filed an affidavit of one Sri Narendra Kumar Upadhyay in his support who stated that the tenant was in medical profession and running his business whereas from the disputed shop his son was carrying on the business as optician.
In the release application, the respondent No.1 landlady prayed that the shop was urgently required as her husband intended to start business of repairing fire arms from the disputed shop for her son Shamshad Ahmed.
