Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 281 (ALL)

Jasbir Singh Yadav v. Amar Nath Sharma

2016-01-20

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Sunita Agarwal, J. – Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court in a release filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The release application has been filed for the need of Anil Sharma, younger son of the applicant landlord. The release was contested on the ground that Anil Sharma is working as a Supervisor in Sainik Petrol Pump. Further there are five shops in the premises in question, out of which one shop was given on rent to one Subhash Chand during the pendency of the release. The another shop which is occupied by one Mahendra is lying closed. 3. The Court below has recorded that there are five shops in the premises in question out of which one is in occupation of the petitioners who had inherited it from their father Hem Shankar Yadav. The petitioner no. 2 Jagbir Singh Yadav is not in possession of the shop in question as he is engaged in a private job. So far as the petitioner no. 2 Jagbir Singh Yadav is concerned, he has opened his lawyer's office in the shop in question. Out of the remaining four shops, in one shop, the landlords son Kanti is doing his business. Other three shops are in tenancy of different tenants. The petitioner has not been able to establish that one shop was given on rent to Shri Subhash Chand during the pendency of the release. The burden was upon the tenant who has failed to discharge it. Challenging this finding learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a categorical submission that Mahendra who was doing business of Sweet maker had opened his shop at another place and now he is keeping the shop in question closed. 4. Admittedly the said shop is not in vacant possession of the landlord. Even it is illegally occupied by the other tenant, it would not be open for the petitioner to challenge the finding of this ground. The need for younger son of the landlord was found genuine and there is nothing on record to indicate that there is any other place to establish him in business. 5. Even it is illegally occupied by the other tenant, it would not be open for the petitioner to challenge the finding of this ground. The need for younger son of the landlord was found genuine and there is nothing on record to indicate that there is any other place to establish him in business. 5. No interference is required on comparative hardship as it was found by the Courts below that the petitioner is in possession of his own house, he could start his lawyer's chamber therein. This apart the petitioner has not made any effort to get an alternative place for his lawyer's office. In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required. 6. Lastly learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be provided a reasonable time to shift his belongings. 7. To this submission, learned counsel for the respondent has no objection. 8. In view thereof, it is provided: - (1) The petitioner shall file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Court below within a period of six months along with certified copy of this order that he shall vacate the premises in question on or before 1.8.2016. (2) In case, the petitioner fails to furnish the undertaking or vacate the shop in question within the time provided above, proceedings for his eviction may be initiated in accordance with law. 9. With the above observations and direction, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.