Shamahad Ahmad & Ors vs Tilak Raj Bajaj (D) By Lrs. & Ors

2. For appreciating the controversy in the present appeal, few relevant facts may be noted.

3. The appellants are landlords having Shop No.2 in Building No. 43 situated on Gandhi Road in the city of Dehradun. The respondents are heirs of one Prakash Chand. Initially, the property was let out to Prakash Chand, grandfather of the respondents who are heirs and legal representatives of said Prakash Chand. The tenancy was created in 1956 at a monthly rent of Rs.18.75 paise per month which was subsequently raised to Rs.25.50 paise. 3

4. It appears that the landlords served notice on October 3, 1988 to the tenant terminating his tenancy. A suit for possession was thereafter instituted being Eviction Suit No. 4 of 1989 titled Shamshad Ahmad & Ors. v. Prakash Chand in the Small Causes Court, Dehradun and the matter was sub-judice. During the pendency of the suit, landlords made an application to the Prescribed Authority under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') for possession of the suit shop on the ground that the landlords required the shop bona fide for carrying on business by Matloob Ahmad, husband of Smt. Kishwar Ahmad-applicant No.6 with Kum. Faraha Matloob, daughter of Smt. Kishwar Ahmad and Matloob Ahmad for running business in readymade garments.

5. It was the case of the landlords that Matloob Ahmad, husband of Smt. Kishwar Ahmad who was working in C.D. Account Service, was 4 due to retire within a short period. He had no any other business of his own. Smt. Kishwar Ahmad, therefore, wanted to get possession of suit shop so that her husband Matloob Ahmad could carry on business in readymade garments with her daughter Kum. Faraha Matloob.

24. The counsel urged that taking into consideration all these facts, the Prescribed Authority refused to make an order of eviction against the tenant. The said finding ought not to have been disturbed by the appellate Court and the High Court was, therefore, compelled to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority. It was, therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

(emphasis supplied)

37. While dealing with petitions under the present statute, the above principles have been followed.

39. The High Court of Allahabad in a petition by the tenants, set aside the finding recorded by the appellate authority and dismissed the eviction application. Aggrieved landlords approached this Court.

47. Finally, however, the petition was allowed by the same Judge, the order passed by the appellate authority was set aside and the application filed by the landlords for possession of property was dismissed.

50. In view of the facts and circumstances in their entirety and on the findings recorded by the appellant authority, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was not right in interfering with the order passed 32 by the appellate authority and in dismissing the application of the landlords. The said order, therefore, deserves to be set aside and we do accordingly.

51. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the High Court is set aside and the order of eviction recorded by the appellant authority and the Additional District Judge III on 25th May, 2001 is restored.

53. The appeal is allowed accordingly. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.