Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. – Order dated 22.1.2014 passed on the order sheet of this writ petition is quoted below: “Heard Shri R.N. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.N. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the tenant respondent. Judgment reserved. List for delivery of judgment on 29.1.2014. On inquiry from the Court Shri N.N. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the tenant respondent states that in case matter is decided in favour of the tenant, he is ready to enhance the rent lo a reasonable extent.’ 2. This is landlord’s writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against tenant opposite party No. 2, Ramesh Jaiswal on the ground of bona fide need under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 13 of 1990, Sita Ram v. Ramesli Jaiswal. Prescirbed authority/Second Additional C.J.M. Barabanki allowed the release application through order dated 15.5.1993. Against the said order tenant opposite party No. 2 filed R.C. Appeal No. 6 of 1993, Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal v. Sita Ram which was allowed by 4th A.DJ. Barabanki through judgment and order dated 6.11.1999 order passed by the prescribed authority dated 15.5.1993 was set-aside and release application was dismissed, hence, this writ petition. 3. Sita Ram, original petitioner had filed the release application in respect of shop in dispute for establishing chamber for his son Shiv Kumar Gupta on the allegation that Shri S.K. Gupta was an advocate and he was having no chamber. During pendency of the writ petition Shri Sita Ram, original petitioner died and was substituted by Shiv Kumar. Lower Appellate Court held that certificate enrolment of Shri Shiv Kumar as an advocate with the Bar Council was not filed, hence, it could not be held that he was an advocate. 4. On inquiry from Court Shri R.N. Gupta, learned Counsel for Shiv Kumar substituted petitioner stated that Shiv Kumar was not enrolled with the Bar Council, however, he was practicing as a junior before Income Tax and Sales (Trade) Tax Officers and Authorities and the advocate with whom he was working as junior had also filed affidavit in that regard. 5. A person who is not enrolled with Bar Council cannot practice in a Court of law. 6. During the pendency of the writ petition, original petitioner landlord Shri Sita Ram died on 13.3.2006.
5. A person who is not enrolled with Bar Council cannot practice in a Court of law. 6. During the pendency of the writ petition, original petitioner landlord Shri Sita Ram died on 13.3.2006. Shiv Kumar, son of Sita Ram for whose need Sita Ram had filed the release application filed substitution application on 9,8.2007 supported by his affidavit stating that late Shri Sita Ram, his father had executed a will on 22.12.2004 under which shop in dispute and the northern shop in which Sita Ram was himself doing business, was bequethed to him, hence, he alone must be substituted at the place of his father, original petitioner. The substitution application was allowed on 19.8.2009. Copy of the will is Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed in support of substitution application. It is mentioned in the will that testator Sita Ram had two sons, Tulsi Ram and Shiv Kumar and he had given one shop to Tulsi Ram (in which Tulsi Ram was already doing business) and the other two shops, i.e., shop in dispute and the shop in which testator himself was doing business were given to Shiv Kumar, the substituted petitioner. 7. No evidence was led on behalf of the landlord to show that Shiv Kumar was even L.L.B. Pass. 8. I do not find least error in the judgment given by the lower Appellate Court holding that the need for Shiv Kumar was not bona fide. Specific plea had been taken that Shiv Kumar was an advocate and shop was required to establish his chamber. It has not been proved that Shiv Kumar is enrolled as an advocate rather it has been admitted that he is not advocate. Accordingly, need was not bona fide in the least. 9. Secondly, I agree with the learned Counsel for the respondent that due to death of the landlord during pendency of this writ petition the shop which was in occupation of the original deceased landlord also became available to Shiv Kumar, the substituted landlord, to whom it was exclusively bequeathed, hence, need, if any, stood satisfied. 10. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. Writ petition is dismissed. 11. However, rent of the shop in dispute is enhanced to Rs. 1000 per month payable w.e.f. February 2014 onwards. The existing rent is about Rs. 200 per month. Petition Dismissed. ______________