Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This is tenant's petition.

2. An application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was moved by the landlady-respondent No. 2 for the release of the shop in question, which is admittedly in the tenancy of the petitioner. The need shown therein was that the disputed shop is bona fide required by her husband and her youngest son Raj Kumar for establishing some business therein as both of them were unemployed, the husband having left the service at Delhi and the son having completed his studies. She has no other vacant shop with her, whereas the tenant being a big business concern could procure any other shop in the city of Meerut and could shift their business, in case the application was not allowed, the landlady would suffer greater hardship than the tenant.

6. Counsel for the parties were heard at length.

7. On the examination of record and the Judgment of the lower appellate court, I am unable to uphold the same for the reasons detailed below.

8. The first and foremost question for consideration in this writ petition is whether the finding of the lower appellate court reversing the finding of the Prescribed Authority on the Issue of bona fide need suffers from any manifest error of law? The landlady in her application came with a case that her husband Bhagwat Dayal Gupta was working as Packing Supervisor in a firm M/s. Mittal World Wide, New Delhi and prior to the filling of the release application, he left that Job and was unemployed. Her eldest son was carrying on business of finance in the name and style of M/s. Annu Finance. Second son Ashok Kumar was employed with M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd., Modipuram, Meerut while the third youngest son Raj Kumar after completing his education was still unemployed. The shop in question was, therefore, required for starting a new business therein by her husband and the youngest son Raj Kumar. The tenant-petitioner seriously disputed the alleged need of the landlady and asserted that as far as Raj Kumar, the youngest son was concerned, he was not unemployed as he was already engaged in business. As regards the husband of the landlady the case of the petitioner was that he was still employed in Delhi and in any case, he was not capable of doing any business because of his old age and physical Incapacity. The Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that Raj Kumar was not unemployed. The landlady in her release application concealed the fact that the said Raj Kumar was working as a partner in M/s. Annu Finance. After when the said assertion was made by the petitioner, she had to admit in her affidavit that her son Raj Kumar was also a partner in M/s. Annu Finance though according to her, he was simply a sleeping partner but that stand of the landlady was not believed by the Prescribed Authority. As far as the alleged need of the husband of the landlady was concerned, the Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that when he was to retire in the year 1987 then why the shop in question was offered for sale to the tenant if the same was genuinely required for setting up him in the business, has not been explained and this created a serious doubt in her claim. The Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that the landlady failed to prove that her need for the shop in question was genuine and bona fide. A perusal of the Judgment of the lower appellate court would indicate that as regards the need of the youngest son of the landlady. It has almost agreed with the view taken by the Prescribed Authority as it also disbelieved the landlady's version that he was simply a sleeping partner in M/s. Annu Finance. It has been observed in the Judgment of the lower appellate court as under :

"To The Regional Adm. Officer, Remington Rand of India Limited, Sunlight Insurance Building, Asaf All Road, New Delhi.
Dear Sir, Sub : Purchase of shop No. 177/Q at Bombay Bazar, Meerut.
This is with reference to our discussion on your last visit on the subject.
We are Interested to sell our above shop, which is occupied by your organization and would sell it for Rs. 50.000 (Rupees fifty thousand only).
This is for your Information.
Thanking you.
Yours faithfully,   Sd/-            

(MRS. KAMLA DEVI) 

Tanki Mohalla      
 

 Dated: 16.7.1984                                                                                                                             Sadar, Meerut Cantt."
11. This letter and the conduct of the landlady weighed heavily with the Prescribed Authority while examining the question of bona fide need. The explanation of the landlady with regard to the aforesaid offer was that at the time when the offer was made, she was in dire need of money but she did not sell the shop in question because she was not getting a reasonable price. The Prescribed Authority took the view that when the landlady knew it fully well that her husband was going to retire in near future and was to be settled in some business, the fact that still the shop in question was offered for sale to the petitioner-tenant would go to show that she was not in real need of the shop in question for setting up her husband in business. The lower appellate court has, however, reversed this finding of the Prescribed Authority on a ground which was not pleaded or taken by the landlady. Whether or not the explanation furnished by the landlady in respect of the offer made by her to sell the shop in question to the petitioner for Rs. 50,000 was satisfactory and believable, this question has not been gone into by the lower appellate court; Whether the landlady Infect needed money at that time and what were the circumstances which compelled her to make such an offer have not been considered at all by the lower appellate court. The aforesaid offer could not be lightly brushed aside in the circumstances of the present case while considering the question of bona fide need of the landlady specifically in view of the fact that the landlady had admittedly sold two other shops earlier in the years 1974 and 1979. On this ground also, the order of the lower appellate court cannot be upheld.