Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The dispute is about a shop No.341/1-2, Sadar Bazar, Jhansi.

Smt. Geeta Sharma the respondent No.1 is the owner and landlady of the said shop. It was under the tenancy of Naresh Bhatiya who was running a stationary shop. On his death the tenancy devolved upon his widow Smt. Rashmi Bhatiya and the two unmarried daughters.

The owner and landlady, respondent No.1 applied for release of the above shop under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Act") for her bona fide need to establish an Ayurvedic Clinic in its existing form or, if necessary, after demolition and its reconstruction. The release application was contested by Smt. Rashmi Bhatiya by filing a written statement. Later the two daughters of the deceased-tenant were also impleaded and one of them, petitioner No.2 Km. Ritu Bhatiya filed a separate written statement. The other daughter Km. Richa Bhatiya, proforma respondent No.2 did not contest.

The comparative hardship as held by the courts below does not tilt in favour of the petitioners for the simple reason that they have not made any serious effort to search out any alternative accommodation. They have not even applied for allotment of any shop which clearly indicates their casual approach, if any, in searching out an alternative shop.

This apart, it has come on record that petitioner No.1 is a Teacher in a school. She, therefore, cannot run the shop despite tenancy having devolved upon her. It is not their case that the shop would be run by the daughter of the deceased-tenant or by someone onher behalf.