- (1.)THE tenant of the shop bearing Municipal No. 3320, Chauraha Station Road, Kashipur, the then District Nainital (Uttar Pradesh) (hereinafter referred to as "the shop"), is in appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad, dismissing his Civil Miscellaneous W.P. No. 8958 of 1992, on 1/4/1999.
(2.)ONE late Narender Kumar, father of Respondents 1 to 3 filed an application before the prescribed authority under S. 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") seeking an order of eviction of the appellant on the ground that the shop is a joint Hindu family property and is needed for carrying on business by himself, his sons, his brother and his sons. The application was contested by the appellant on both the grounds, namely, denying that it is a joint Hindu family property and that the need of the respondents is bona fide. On 12/2/1990, the prescribed authority found that the shop was not a joint Hindu family property but was a personal property of the said Narender Kumar and that the need of the respondents was not bona fide. However, on appeal by the said Narender Kumar, the learned appellate authority held that the need of the said Narender Kumar and his sons, his brothers and nephews was bona fide and in that view of the matter, allowed the appeal on 5/3/1992.
The appellant challenged the validity of the said order of the appellate authority in the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad in Mahendra Kumar Agarwal Vs. Addl. District Judge, Nainital. By the impugned judgment the High Court declined to interfere and dismissed the writ petition. That is how the appellant is before us in appeal by special leave.

(3.)SHRI G.L. Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the application of the said Narender Kumar indicates that the property was claimed to be a joint Hindu family property and the need pleaded is of all the members of the family, therefore, the appellate authority as well as the High Court are not right in holding that the need is bona fide.