M/s Girdhari Lal And Company, Firozabad and another vs Meera Rani Gupta

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The application dated 17.3.2007 was filed by landlady Smt. Meera Rani u/s 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 13 of 1972) for release of shop in dispute on the ground of personal need of her son. The allegation in the release application was that the tenant is not running the shop in dispute and has closed his business of railway ticket booking agency from the shop in dispute as far back as in 1990; that thereafter he has sublet portions of the shop in dispute to various persons. The release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 9 of 2009 in the Court of Civil Judge (junior Division), Firozabad. The petitioner contested the release application by filing written statement denying the plaint allegations. The case setup by him was that shop in question was not closed and that the tenant is running his own business therein. It was also averred that the need of the landlord is not bona fide and her son is running several businesses in different shops in the city and that the landlady has several other shops in which she can adjust her son.

In support of the release application, the landlady filed her own affidavit as well as affidavits of (1) Virendra Kumar Gupta (husband of landlady), (2) Damodar Singh Shankhwar, (3) Rajesh Yadav, (4) Shree Chand, (5) Atul Gupta (son of the land lady), (6) Sarvesh Gupta, and (7) Praveen Gupta.

On behalf of the tenants/petitioners, affidavits of (1) Vinay Kumar Srivastava, (2) Umesh Chandra Bansal, (3) Kamal Singh, (4) Sarvesh Chandra, (5) Lavkesh Kumar were filed.

The Prescribed Authority by order/judgment dated 10.4.2008 allowed the release application and granted two months time to the tenant for vacating the accommodation in question.

Challenging the order/judgment dated 10.4.2008 (Annexure-6) tenants (petitioners) filed an appeal u/s 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Firozabad.

The petitioners'' appeal has been dismissed by judgment/order dated 22.1.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge (Court No. 2), Firozabad.

Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the need of the landlady is bona fide and there is no other shop available to the landlady nor any property which is suitable for establishing her son in business. Findings of fact have been recorded to the effect that the tenant had filed to prove his case whereas the landlady on the basis of documentary and oral evidence had proved that the business of railway ticket booking agency run by the tenant in the shop in dispute had closed in the year 1990 and as his licence had not been renewed by the railway since then. In this regard Courts have also taken note that:

[Vernacular Matter Omitted]

The Courts have also found that the shop in dispute will be suitable for running the fisheries business by the son of the landlady.

Apart from above, the Appellate Court has also recorded a finding that the landlady has also approved the factum averred by her in the release application that the petitioner after closing of his business has sub-let the shops to other persons.

In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below and the fact that the petitioner has conclusively proved before the Courts below by cogent evidence that the business of the petitioner has been closed as far as in the year 1990 and he has sub-let the shop in dispute in his tenancy to other persons; no interference is required by this Court in the facts and circum-stances of the case.

At this stage Sri D.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel submits that he would not assail concurrent findings of fact and that some time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the shop in dispute.

Considering the prayer and the facts that business of the petitioner has remained closed since 1990 which has been proved before the Courts below by cogent reasons and documentary evidence, yet the tenant has been litigating for the last about 21 years with the landlady on the ground that his business is not closed and that he had not sublet the shop in dispute to other persons. In the opinion of the Court three months time as prayed by learned Counsel for the petitioner would be sufficient for vacated the shop in dispute by the tenant and handing over its peaceful possession to the respondent-landlady.

The petition, is accordingly, dismissed directing the tenant to hand over the peaceful possession of the shop in dispute to the respondent-landlady within a period of three months from today.

No order as to costs.