JUDGMENT

1.THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED BY THE LANDLORDS AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2002 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2067 (M/S) OF 2001. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL REVERSED AN ORDER of eviction passed by the Additional District Judge III (FTC), Dehradun (Appellate Authority), dated May 25, 2001 in Rent Control Appeal No. 165 of 1995 and restored the order passed by the Prescribed Authority (First Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division), Dehradun dated November 18, 1995 in P.A. Case No. 53 of 1989 by which the application of the landlords for eviction of respondent-tenant came to be dismissed.

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.

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 I 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 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 Km. Faraha Matloob.

6. The tenant Prakash Chand filed a written statement controverting the facts stated and averments made in the application and contested the claim of the landlords. It was stated that landlords were having huge property in Dehradun. They were enjoying high status and were a `reputed family in the city. They were very rich and having business in timber wood. They did not require the shop for doing business in readymade garments.

7. Matloob Ahmad was in Government service and had not retired. It was also contended that even after retirement, he would not do business in readymade garments. Neither Matloob Ahmad nor Km. Faraha Matloob had any experience in the business of readymade garments and on that ground also, the claim was not well founded.

8. Moreover, both Smt. Kishwar Ahmad and Kum. Faraha Matloob were pardanasin ladies. For that reason also, they could not come in public and could not do any business. The application was filed only with a view to get the tenant evicted. Moreover, one suit which had already been instituted for getting possession on the ground that the property was in dilapidated condition and was required repairing, was pending and hence an application under Section 21 of the Act was not maintainable. It was stated that the tenant was very poor having a grocery shop. He was doing business since last about forty years. The income from the grocery shop run by the tenant from the suit shop was the only means of income for the entire family consisting of nine members. If eviction order is passed against t