The judgment establishes the importance of documentary evidence in determining tenancy disputes and emphasizes the consideration of landlord's genuine need and tenant's comparative hardship in release applications.

Sunita Agrawal, J. –

Heard Sri A.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order of release dated 12.3.2014 passed in P.A. Case No. 49 of 2010 (Krishna Murari v. Satish Agrawal and another)and the judgment and order dated 29.7.2015 passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 40 of 2014.

3. The property in dispute is shop no. 86/10 measuring "14ft. X 6.3ft." abutting road at the ground floor of House No. 85/7, Sultanpura, Agra Cantt., Agra. The respondent-landlord filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on 9th August, 2010 with the assertion that he is landlord and owner of the shop no. 86/10. The petitioner no. 1 i.e. Satish Agrawal was inducted as tenant on a monthly rent @ Rs. 475/- per month besides water tax @ 14% per annum in the year 1999. The petitioner no. 1 Satish Agrawal is running his business in the name and style of "M/s. Maharaja Gift Centre" in a shop existing in his own house and he has delivered possession of the shop in question to petitioner no. 2 Mohan Kumar Agrawal (his brother), who is doing his business under the name and style of "M/s. Mohan General Store".

4. The shop in question is required to establish three sons of the landlord and is urgently needed to settle his one son Sumit who is a mobile repair mechanic.

5. As per statement in paragraph 8' of the release application, three adult sons of the landlord and the landlord himself required the shop in question. The release was contested by the petitioners on the ground that the tenancy of the shop in question was initially in the name of their father Ram Charan Lal Agrawal who was running his business in two adjacent shops. The shop in question i.e. shop no. 86/10 was inherited by his son Mohan Kumar Agarwal and the adjacent shop no. 86/9 is now in possession of Sri Radhey Shyam and Mohan Kumar Agrawal wherein they are carrying on their business with the support of the petitioner no. 1. After death of Ram Charan Lal Agrawal, in a family partition the shop in question came in the share of the petitioners and they are running their business in both the shops and under the name of style of "M/s Mohan General Store".

6. In view of some dispute between the sons of late Ram Charan Lal Agrawal, two rent receipts were issued by the landlord whereas the fact remains that the petitioners are co-tenants of the shop in question. The version of the applicant-landlord that the petitioner no. 1 Satish Agrawal is tenant and petitioner no. 2 Mohan Kumar Agrawal is his sub-tenant, is incorrect. The rent receipts though issued in the name of Satish Agrawal but the rent was always paid by petitioner no. 2 Mohan Kumar Agrawal who put his signatures on the counter foil of the rent receipts.

7. The rent receipts of shop no. 86/9, the adjacent shop @ Rs. 20/- per month issued in the name of Ram Charan Lal Agrawal as tenant have been brought on record in support of this contention. However, the rent receipts @ Rs. 475/- of the shop in question i.e. shop no. 86/10 are in the name of Satish Agrawal, the petitioner no. 1.

8. An affidavit dated 9.1.2013 was filed by the respondent-landlord to reiterate that the shop no. 86/10 (the shop in question) was given on rent to Sri Satish Agrawal and the rent receipts from 1.2.1999 to 31.3.1999 issued by the respondent-landlord Krishna Murari have been filed to establish that Satish Agrawal was inducted as tenant in the year 1999. The rent receipts in the name of previous tenant Jagdish Prasad of the shop no. 86/10 for the year 1998 were also filed to establish that before induction of petitioner no. 1 Satish Agrawal, the tenant of the shop in question was Jagdish Prasad. The shop no. 86/10 was never in tenancy of Satish Agrawal or his father Ram Charan Agrawal prior to the year 1999.

9. The Prescribed Authority after perusal of these evidences decided issue no. 1 in favour of the respondent-land