By order dated 02.02.2000, the appellate companyrt allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 04.03.1999 on the ground that the Presiding Officer has numberjurisdiction to pass the order.
6 but he did number vacate.
13 of 1994 and order dated 24.08.2011 of the Additional District Judge, Aligarh in P.U.B. Appeal No.
Against the said judgment, the appellant landlady has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
There are in all 7 shops in the building in which suit shop in situated.
6 so that both Shops, i.e., 6 and 7 companyld be used for running the clinic in a companyfortable manner.
Parties adduced evidence.
Writ Petition No.
10669 of 2000 before the High Court.
7 is in occupation of the appellant wherein her daughter Dr. Naheed Parveen is doing medical practice.
13 of 1994 seeking release of Shop No.
Thereafter by order dated 24.08.2011, the appellate companyrt dismissed the appeal U.P.U.B. Appeal No.
It was further alleged that the appellant has numberother shop available except Shop No.
Facts of the case need mention, in brief, infra to appreciate the companytroversy involved in the appeal.
6 is bona fide and genuine and that it is required for expansion of clinic run by the appellants daughter in Shop No.
By impugned judgment dated 17.01.2012, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 04.03.1999 of the Prescribed Authority and order dated 24.08.2011 dismissing the appeal of the respondent tenant.
It was held that the appellant has numberother suitable shop in city where her daughter son can run their clinic.
It was also alleged that the respondent is having his own shops in the same area and hence even if he vacates the shop in question, there will be numberhardship to him.
6 which is most suitable for expansion of clinic being next to Shop No.
It was alleged that there would be numberspace companystraint once both the Shops 67 are clubbed together.
6 situated on the Dodhpur Road, Aligarh, Building No.
4/569B. The respondent is the tenant in Shop No.
Felt aggrieved by the said order, the respondent tenant filed an appeal being U.P.U.B. Appeal No.
Initially, Shop No.
7 and her son.
It was also held that the respondent has other shops for running his business in the same locality and, therefore, there would be numberhardship caused to the respondent.
7 of 1999 of the respondent tenant and companyfirmed the order dated 04.03.1999 passed by the Prescribed Authority.
Against the said judgment order dated 02.02.2000, the appellant landlady filed C.M.W.P. No.
7 is about 16.9 ft.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondent tenant filed M.W.P. No.
7 and it is for this reason she requires adjacent Shop No.
6 in her favour for her bona fide requirement and genuine need in companyparison to the need of the respondent.
The respondent filed his written statement to the application denying the need of the appellant landlady as bona fide or genuine.
The High Court by order dated 18.02.2011 allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 02.02.2000 and remanded the matter to the appellate Court for deciding the same on merits in accordance with law.
7 is finding it difficult and inconvenient to run the clinic due to space companystraint in Shop No.
Therefore, the appellant filed an application under Section 21 1 a of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act in the Court of the Prescribed Authority Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aligarh being U.P.U.B. Case No.
It was held that the appellants need for using Shop No.
By order dated 04.03.1999, the Prescribed Authority allowed the application and directed the respondent tenant to vacate the shop in question within 3 months of the date of the order and to give the vacant possession to the appellant landlady and also pay by way of damages two years rent amount within 30 days from the date of the order.
65612 of 2011 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent tenant and set aside the order dated 04.03.1999 of the Prescribed Authority in U.P.U.B. Case No.
in area and is inadequate for running clinic.
7 of 1999 under Section 22 of the Act before the Additional District Judge, Aligarh.
On 11.02.1994, the appellant personally requested the respondent to vacate Shop No.
According to the appellant, Shop No.
6 and doing business of selling Footwear shoes and sandals in the name of Khan Brothers on a monthly rent of Rs.100/ .
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
7 was occupied by the husband of the appellant, Dr. Ahsan Ahmed, who was practicing medicines in the said shop and after his death, the said shop remained closed for about two three years and after that her daughter started practicing medicines there.
It was alleged that the appellants daughter, who is a doctor and running her private clinic in Shop No.
x10 ft.
This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc.
Shop No.
65612 of 2011 before the High Court.
Except Shop No.7, all are occupied by different tenants.
It was also alleged that the appellants one son has done his MBBS and is doing M.D. He too would do his practice in the shop in question.
The appellant is the landlady of the shop being Shop No.
07 of 1999.
