Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.

This petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the judgment and order dated 07.09.2012 passed by Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun and the judgment and order dated 05.09.2013 passed by Addl. District Judge/Special Judge E.C. Act, Dehradun. A further prayer has been made to issue direction to the respondent not to evict the petitioners from the shop no. 105/2, Ward No. 3, Nagar Panchayat, Doiwala, District Dehradun.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the petition, are that the respondent filed an application for release of the shop in question for his own need under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against Swaroop Singh (husband of the petitioner no.1) in the Court of Prescribed Authority, which was registered as P.A. Suit No. 1 of 2012 ‘Ramesh Rawat vs. Swaroop Singh’ In support of his contention, the landlord filed several documents alongwith his affidavit and affidavits of Smt. Savitri Rawat, Mahesh Rawat and Suraj Prakash Rawat. Tenant-Swaroop Singh filed objection against the release application and denied the allegation made in the release application. The Prescribed Authority vide its judgment and order dated 07.09.2012 allowed the release application of the landlord. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, late Swaroop Singh preferred a Rent Control Appeal, bearing No. 150 of 2012 ‘Swaroop Singh vs. Ramesh Rawat’ before the District Judge, Dehradun, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of Addl. District Judge/Special Judge E.C. Act, Dehradun. During the pendency of said appeal, Swaroop Singh died and his legal heirs and representatives were substituted and vide judgment and order dated 05.09.2013, the learned Addl. District Judge/Special Judge E.C. Act, Dehradun dismissed the said appeal.

3. Contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Prescribed Authority as well as the learned Lower Appellate Court did not consider the submission of the petitioners that the building in question was constructed in the year 1988, and first assessment of the building was done in the year 1989 inasmuch as, the rent of the shop in question is ‘ 2,500/-, therefore provisions of the Act are not applicable in the shop in question. It is further contended that the Courts below did not properly consider that only source of livelihood of the petitioners is the shop in question, whereas the landlord is a retired person and is getting pension. Apart from this, the landlord is also having three shops.

4. I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the entire material available on record.

5. The Courts below have observed that when the landlord filed the release application under the Act, the tenant did not make any averment that the provisions of the Act are not applicable on the premises in question and the tenants have merely stated that husband of petitioner no.1 (Swaroop Singh) was the tenant in the shop since 1987. It has been held out that since the direct averment made in the application, that provisions of the Act are applicable on the premises in question, were not denied by the petitioners/tenant, this amounts to an admission on their part. The landlord had made description of his bonafide need in his release application, wherein it was stated that his family consists of himself, his wife, two married daughters and two unmarried daughters. It was further held out that landlord is a retired person and is in need of additional income from another profession and that he wants to set up a business of photocopy. It has been held out that the shop was banafidely required by the landlord for his own occupation, as he is in need of additional income and he needs to marry his two unmarried daughters.

6. A bare perusal of the judgment given by the Courts below, it nowhere discloses that any doc