Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17522 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1000097 of 1995 Petitioner :- Whorra Brothers Respondent :- Smt. Kastoori Devi And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Mishra,Alok Sinha,Sandeep Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- B.C.Agarwal,Piyush Kumar Agarwal,Varadraj S. Ojha Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

C.M. Application Nos.33153 of 2016 and 33155 of 2016

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. These are application for condonation of delay in filing application for substitution and amendment and application for substitution and amendment.

3. The cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the applications, the applications are allowed and the delay is condoned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to incorporate the necessary substitution/amendment during the course of the day.

Order on Writ Petition

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Gaurav Mehrotra along with Ms. Alina Masoodi, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1/2 and 1/3 as well as Shri Piyush Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1/1 and 1/4.

3. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated

15.05.1995, whereby the appeal preferred by the landlady against the order rejecting the application for release was allowed.

4. The facts in brief as emerged from the documents on record indicate that the respondent no.1 (since deceased) had granted a premises bearing No.498/239 at Faizabad Road, Lucknow comprising of total covered area 385.35 square meters and open land area 142.25 square meters on monthly rent of Rs.187.50 to M/s Whorra Brothers. Subsequently when the landlady wanted the said premises for setting up the business of her son, who had completed his graduation, a release application was filed seeking release of the premises under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 pleading that the said premises was required for the son of the landlady, who wanted to set up the manufacturing business. The said application was opposed by the tenant on the ground that there was no need for the premises as set up in the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. Simultaneously, it was pleaded that the landlady owned several premises, which could be used, the details of the properties owned by the respondent no.1, which included the plot of land and land situate at Ghazipur, the other properties described were the residential premises as well as premises owned by the husband of the landlady. The release application came to be dismissed mainly on the ground that the landlady could not substantiate her contention with regard to the bonafide need. The said application came to be dismissed vide order dated 09.08.1992.

5. Aggrieved against the said order, the landlady preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. During pendency of the appeal, affidavits were also exchanged in between the parties. The documents as indicated in para 24 of the writ petition were filed, which included balance sheet, profit and loss account. The appellate court took the affidavits on record and thereafter, proceeded to decide the appeal. While deciding the appeal, it was observed that the initial tenant of the landlady was M/s Whorra Brothers, who did not do any work in the tenanted premises. It was also recorded that in the year 1973 another firm in the name of M/s Whorra Brothers and Company was incorporated and the partners of the said new firm were in occupation of the accommodation in question.

6. It was also recorded that no balance sheet of M/s Whorra Brothers was filed and all the balance sheet, profit and loss account of M/s Whorra Brothers and Company were filed. It was also observed that inclusion of M/s Whorra Brothers and Company, whose partners are different and distinct from M/s Whorra Brothers amounted to a vacancy as prescribed under Section 12 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. With regard to the bonafide need as alleged, the appellate court