Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J.

Heard Sri Arvind Vashishth, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Kohli, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate for the respondents Nos. 3 to 21.

Factual Matrix of the Case

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 7.05.2004 and 02.04.1996 passed by respondents Nos. 1 & 2 respectively (Annexures Nos. 14 & 11 respectively to the writ petition). Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Court, both, have dismissed the petitioner’s release application.

Bonafide Need

3. Briefly stated, application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by the petitioner praying for the release of the accommodation situated at 78/1 Raja Road, Dehradun, forming part of property no. 78 Raja Road, Dehradun.

4. According to the case of the petitioner, the disputed premises was taken on rent by Sri Jia Lal Jain, the predecessor of respondents Nos. 3 to 21, who was carrying the business under the name and style of M/s Jain Steel Works, Darshani Gate, Dehradun. Later on, late Sri Jia Lal Jain started using the disputed premises as Godown for storing the goods of his firm M/s Jain Steel Works. Further the petitioner has stated that for the last 3 years, no business activities are being carried out in the disputed premises.

5. In paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the release application, the petitioner has stated as under :

“13. That the wife of the petitioner Smt. Bimla Gupta is carrying on business of Hardwares and Ply etc. under the name and style of M/s Kumar Associates at 59 Raja Road, Dehradun which is situated just in front of the disputed shop across the road. The said business require place for showroom, store and sale counter etc. Moreover, the wife of the applicant wants to add marble business to her present business, which too would require additional place for storing marble stones and chips etc.

14. The premises at 59 Raja Road, Dehradun is not sufficient for the business activity of the business of the wife of applicant.

15. That the disputed shop is required by the wife of the applicant for using the same as godown for storing hardwares, marble stones and chips etc.”

6. In view of the above, the petitioner required the release of the premises in dispute for his wife Smt. Bimla Gupta for storing marble stones and chips and for that purpose, premises at 59 Raja Road, Dehradun, is not sufficient.

7. The respondents have filed the additional written statement. In paragraphs 24 and 39 of the written statement it has been stated as under :

ß24- ;g dguk xyr gS fd izkFkhZ dh ifRu Jhefr fceyk xqIrk dksbZ O;kikj dqekj ,lksfl;sV~l ds uke ls 59 jktk jksM+ ij dj jgh gksA okLrfodrk ;g gS fd izkFkhZ elwjh esa Vh-oh- izfr’Bku esa lsokjr gS vkSj vPNs in ij gS] Jhefr fceyk xqIrk ,d ?kjsyw L=h gSA vkSj izkFkhZ ds lkFk elwjh esa gh jgrh gSA izkFkhZ ds cPps Hkh elwjh esa jg dj gh i<+ jgs gsaA izkFkhZ ds ifjokj dk dksbZ Hkh lnL; u rks nsgjknwu esa jgrk gS u fdlh O;kikj djus dk iz”u mBrk gSA ;fn eSllZ dqekj ,lksfl;sVl esa dksbZ uke Jhefr fceyk xqIrk dk lk{kh ds ukrs fy[k Hkh fn;k gS rks og dsoy VSDl cpkus ds fy;s gS ftldk izkFkhZ dkbZ ykHk mBkus dk vfèkdkjh ugha gSA okLrfodrk ;g gS fd izkFkhZ dk ,d la;qDr ifjokj gS vkSj izkFkhZ ds HkkbZ Jh lq”khy dqekj ds lkFk O;kikj dj jgs gSaA ijUrq izkFkhZ ds HkkbZ Jh eueksgu ljdkjh lsok esa vkSj vius uke ls O;kikj ugha dj ldrs vr% mUgksaus ml O;kikj esa viuh iRuh o Jhefr fceyk xqIrk dk uke lk{kh ds ukrs Mky fn;k gSA ijUrq okLro esa O;kikj Jh lq”khy dqekj o Jh eueksgu ukxfy;k ds jgs gSaA Jhefr fceyk xqIrk dk dksbZ lEcU/k mDr O;kikj ls ugha gS] u gh og dksbZ O;kikj dj jgh gSa vkSj u djus esa l{ke gSaA

39- ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd izkFkhZ ds rhu cPps gSaA lcls cM+k yM+dk yxHkx N% o’kZ dk gS tks i<+rk gS ckfd “ks’k nks cPps NksVs gSa tks vHkh i<+us fd vk;q esa Hkh ugha gSaA rFkk Jhefr fceyk xqIrk vius rhu cPpksa ds ikyu iks’k.k o ?kj ds dk;Z esa O;Lr jgrh gSaA vkSj muds }kjk O;kikj djus dk