The court affirmed that evidence must be relevant to the current facts of the case, ruling that the landlord's bona fide need for release of premises was valid.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel appearing for petitioner as well as supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel appearing for respondent landlord are taken on records.

2. Heard Shri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Ms. Akansha Gaur, learned Advocate appearing for respondent landlord.

3. By means of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner has questioned the order passed Prescribed Authority granting release in favour of landlord respondent qua demise premises under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short ‘Act No. 13 of 1972’) on the point of bona fide need. Petitioner unsuccessfully questioned the order in appeal and, hence, the order passed by the appellate authority dated 18.10.2024 is also under challenged.

4. The main argument that has been advanced questioning the findings returned by the Prescribed Authority as well as the court of appeal by learned counsel appearing for petitioner Mr. Agarwal, is that he had lead sufficient document of GST forms qua registration of firm, namely, Sanskar Traders which demonstrated the GSTIN number of the business which was both in the name of father and the son and the son was since paying tax, therefore, the son cannot be said to be doing business absolutely in subordination of his father and this also corroborated the averments made in the written statement by the petitioner that there were three shops in possession of landlord respondent, out of which in two shops business was going on. It is submitted that even if the son was doing business of the father, since there were two shops in possession of the landlord respondents, therefore, one of the shops could have gone to the needy son very conveniently and, hence, the need was not a bona fide one.

5. In support of his above submission, learned counsel for petitioner has taken the Court to page Nos. 49 to 53 of the supplementary affidavit which are receipt of the Goods and Service Taxes in which the TIN number of the firm is there showing that the business was in the name of Akash Varshney and since it was a proprietorship firm, therefore, it was sufficiently proved that the entire business was being run by Akash Varshney, the son and he was, therefore, running the business independently. It is further submitted that the court of appeal had not adverted to this aspect of the matter at all and even while it referred to these documents, it did not deal with them and merely relied upon the statement made by the tenant petitioner before the Prescribed Authority that both father and son were doing business jointly. It is thus, submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority and the order affirming the judgment by appellate authority are both suffering from the vice of perversity having overlooked the relevant documents.

6. Per contra, Ms. Akansha Gour, learned Advocate appearing for respondent landlord, meeting the arguments advanced on behalf of petitioner submitted that the release application itself was filed in the year 2020 whereas the documents that have been brought on record in the form of GST receipts to demonstrate that business was being run as proprietorship firm of son Akash Varshney, was only of the year running between 2017-2018. She submitted that in 2018, the GSTIN number came to be cancelled and a new proprietorship firm in the name of Sanskar Traders with father Rakesh Varshney as proprietor of the firm came into existence with effect from 10.09.2018.

7. In support of her above submission she has also fil