RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. YATINDRA NATH GUPTA
LAWS(ALL)-2007-7-192
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on
July 05,2007
RAJENDRA KUMAR
Appellant
VERSUS
YATINDRA NATH GUPTA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SMT. TARA DEVI V. DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]MAHAVIR PRASAD V. VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,GONDA [REFERRED TO]
GULAB BAI V. NALIN NARSIMOINA [REFERRED TO]
RATAN SINGH SEHGAL V. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,KANPUR NAGAR [REFERRED TO]
KAMAR KHAN V. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,DEHRADUN AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
BABU SINGH V. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,KANPUR NAGAR AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
MATTULAL VS. RADHE LAL [REFERRED TO]
BEGA BEGUM VS. ABDUL AHAD KHAN DEAD [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILA VS. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BANDA [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KUMAR VERMA VS. VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BIJNOR [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. SUNIL KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Rakesh Tiwari -
(1.)-Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.)THE petitioner is a tenant of the respondent-landlord. He is doing the business of photography in the shop in dispute. THE respondent-landlord filed P. A. Suit No. 13/1997, Yatindra Nath Gupta v. Rajendra Kumar, before the prescribed authority, Etawah, under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, for ejectment and release of the shop in dispute on the ground of bona fide need and comparative hardship, inter alia, that he has two sons and two daughters. THE elder son is in service and has been married while the younger son has passed LL.B. Examination and has been registered with Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for practise and wants to practice with his father as an Income Tax Advocate, but his office admeasuring 8 feet x 7 feet is too small to accommodate two advocates. THE prescribed authority allowed the suit vide judgment and order dated 17.11.2004 and directed the petitioner-tenant to vacate the shop in dispute within two months.
Aggrieved the petitioner filed P. A. Appeal No. 4/2004 before the District Judge, Etawah. However, the appeal has also been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 11.5.2007 affirming the judgment and order of the prescribed authority dated 17.11.2004 and granted two months' time for handing over possession of the shop in dispute to the respondent-landlord.
The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that one of the shops has been given to one Sri Anand Agrawal without allotment order ; that he is doing the business of photography in the shop in dispute for the last about 66 years which is the only source of his livelihood.
(3.)NO other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
These aspects of the matter have been dealt with by the courts below and it has been held : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]...
(2.)THE petitioner is a tenant of the respondent-landlord. He is doing the business of photography in the shop in dispute. THE respondent-landlord filed P. A. Suit No. 13/1997, Yatindra Nath Gupta v. Rajendra Kumar, before the prescribed authority, Etawah, under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, for ejectment and release of the shop in dispute on the ground of bona fide need and comparative hardship, inter alia, that he has two sons and two daughters. THE elder son is in service and has been married while the younger son has passed LL.B. Examination and has been registered with Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for practise and wants to practice with his father as an Income Tax Advocate, but his office admeasuring 8 feet x 7 feet is too small to accommodate two advocates. THE prescribed authority allowed the suit vide judgment and order dated 17.11.2004 and directed the petitioner-tenant to vacate the shop in dispute within two months.
Aggrieved the petitioner filed P. A. Appeal No. 4/2004 before the District Judge, Etawah. However, the appeal has also been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 11.5.2007 affirming the judgment and order of the prescribed authority dated 17.11.2004 and granted two months' time for handing over possession of the shop in dispute to the respondent-landlord.
The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that one of the shops has been given to one Sri Anand Agrawal without allotment order ; that he is doing the business of photography in the shop in dispute for the last about 66 years which is the only source of his livelihood.
(3.)NO other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
These aspects of the matter have been dealt with by the courts below and it has been held : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]...
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.