Court No. - 19
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9622 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Sharma Respondent :- Additional District Judge-02, Mathura And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhanu Prakash Verma Counsel for Respondent :- Ramanand Gupta
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard Sri Bhanu Prakash Verma learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord.
The instant petition under Article 227 has been filed challenging the order dated 11.11.2016 passed by Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No.10 of 2013 and the order dated 23.10.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Mathura in Appeal No.15 of 2016.
The petitioner is tenant of a shop on behalf of respondent no.3 (for short 'the landlord'). The landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 for release of shop in the tenancy of the petitioner on the ground of bonafide need of his son Ajai Narayan Gupta, who was an advocate registered with Bar Council of U.P. in the year 1991. It was alleged that he is also a public Notary and required the disputed shop for opening a chamber in connection with his profession and for doing work as Notary. It was also specifically asserted in the release application that one adjoining shop in the same building is in possession of the landlord from which he was running a grocery shop. There was also one more small shop in the same building wherefrom his daughter-in- law was running a PCO. The petitioner contested the release application on the ground that infact Ajai Narayan Gupta though registered as a lawyer, has not been in active practice. It was alleged that he was assisting his father in the business run by him which infact is a business relating to sale of medicines and not grocery business as alleged. It was further stated that his son Ajai Narain Gupta was doing Notary work from the same shop from which PCO was being run and also from a room behind it.
The Prescribed Authority considered the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record and entered a specific finding that Ajai Narain Gupta is registered as a lawyer with Bar Council U.P. and is also doing Notary work. In connection with the same, he is not having any suitable accommodation. Consequently, he required the tenanted shop for opening his chamber and for doing Notary work. The Court also considered the plea of the petitioner that Ajai Narain Gupta was sitting in medicine shop of his father. The court held that certain photographs filed by the petitioner to prove the said fact, does not establish that the business was being run by him. The Prescribed Authority rightly held that if a son sits in the shop of his father, it cannot be inferred that he is engaged in the said business. Concededly, no documentary evidence was filed by the petitioner to prove that the grocery business or the alleged medical store are actually being run by Ajai Narain Gupta or he had any share in the said business. It was also held that the other shop was being used by the daughter-in-law for running a PCO and the plea taken by the petitioner that the said business is no more being run, has been repelled in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to assail the findings recorded by the courts below by referring to the Vakalatnama which were filed by the respondent-landlord to prove that his son was engaged in active practice as a lawyer. It is submitted that the case number, year and other details are lacking in the Vakalatnama which were brought on record. He further submitted that PCO is no more being run by the daughter-in-law.
In the considered opinion of the Court, once it is not disputed that Ajai Narain Gupta is duly registered as lawyer with Bar Council of U.P. and that he was also doing Notary work, the findings returned by the courts below that he requires a place to carry on the aforesaid activities, cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse so as to warrant interference in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Likewise, the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below that the other shop is being used by daughter-in-law for running a PCO also does not warrant any interference on the basis of vague allegation that the said business has come to an end.
No other submission has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 20.12.2018 skv