Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Sri Anil Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the writ petition by correcting the word “ allowed’ in place of word “dismissedl” wherever it has been typed that P.A. Case No. 2of 2004 was dismissed.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed by Sri A.K. Mehrotra and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record After the correction has been made in the writ petition learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record is perused.

3. This petition challenges the validity and correctness of the order and judgment dated 28.7.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar as well as the order and judgment dated 24.1.2011 passed by the appellate Court dismissing the Rent Control Appeal No. 21 of 2007, appended as Annexures-6 and 11 respectively to the writ petition.

4. The facts culled out from the records are that respondent landlord filed release application under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No. XXIII of 1972) in respect of a shop under the tenancy of the petitioner situated in Kasba Rabupura Pargana and Tehsil Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the shop in dispute). The aforesaid release application was registered as Rent Case No. 2 of 2004.

5. The petitioner tenant contested the release application by filing his objection dated 10.3.2005. He subsequently amended his objection by amending/incorporating certain paragraphs. These amended objections are appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

6. In support of their respective cases, the petitioner as well as the respondent filed affidavits and documents.

7. The case set-up by the petitioner tenant before the court below was that Sri Prem Nath Goel father of the landlord respondent was the actual owner of the property in dispute; that the respondent was living with his father and an unmarried brother Naresh Goel in a joint Hindu family; that Chandra Prakash Goel the landlord of the shop in dispute was helping his father in his business of cloth in the name and style of Prem Chand Cloth Merchant and that his father was in actual control and owned the said shop and business. The other brother of the landlord respondent Naresh Goel was doing his business independently and he had no concern with the father and his brother Chandra Prakash Goel.

8. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that father Sri Prem Chand Goel has 8 shops in the same market and in fact he had sold one of these shops during the pendency of aforesaid Rent Case No. 2 of 2004 to Sri Ashok Kumar in the month of January, 2005. The father had also filed Rent Case No. 2 of 2003, Prem Nath Goel ver*sus Dal Chand against another tenant namely, Sri Dal Chand for release of the shop under his tenancy. As Rent Case No. 2 of 2003 had been decreed in favour of the father Prem Chand Goel there was no bonafide need of the landlord Chandra Prakash Goel of the shop in dispute under the tenancy of the petitioner for he could establish his business in the shop got vacated from Sri Dal Chand but the Prescribed Authority by order dated 28.7.2007 has illegally allowed Rent Case No. 2 of 2004, Chandra Prakash ver*sus Virendra Kumar without application of mind and against the record.

9. The petitioner appears to have also moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. for filing certain rent receipts and voter list which was allowed by the appellate authority and thereafter he had also filed various rent receipts issued by the father of the respondent with regard to the rent having been paid to him by the petitioner tenant.

10. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.7.2007, the petitioner filed Rent Control Appeal No.21 of 2007 before the Court of District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar which was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 24.1.2011.

11. The or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document