- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 1-12-1999 whereby Respondent No. 1 al lowed the appeal and released the dis puted accommodation in favour of the landlady, Respondent No. 2.
(2.) THE facts, in brief are that Respon dent No. 2 filed an application under Sec tion 21 (l) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the release of the shop in question under the tenancy of the petitioner on the ground that her son Arun Kumar is a Doctor and his wife is also a Doctor. THEy will construct a nursing home after demolition of other shops in cluding the shop of the petitioner. THE application was contested by the petitioner. It was denied that Dr. Arun Kumar requires the disputed shop bona fide for construction of a nursing home and his wife. Both are already doing medical practice in the residential portion of the house and certain constructions have been added near their residential house. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application on 30-3-1996. Respondent No. 2 filed appeal against the said order. Respondent No. 1 allowed the appeal and released the disputed accommodation in favour of the Respondent No. 2 on the finding that the landlady requires the dis puted shop for constructing nursing home for her son Dr. Arun Kumar and the Respondent No. 2 shall suffer a greater hardship, in case the application is rejected. The petitioner has challenged this order in the instant writ petition. On 23-12-1999 the matter was heard by me. One of the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner was that the respondent had sought release application on the ground that there were four shops and all the four shops are required to be demolished for reconstruction of the nurs ing home. The appellate authority had made observations that all the shops were required for demolition and construction of the nursing home. Respondent No. 2 it was urged had submitted, a plan for con structing the nursing home but the appel late authority had not recorded any specific finding as to whether in the said plan the shop of the petitioner was re quired to be demolished and secondly, as to what is the extent of the requirement of Respondent No. 2 for constructing nurs ing home.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Respon dent No. 2 had raised another issue that the petitioner has other alternative ac commodation and he will not suffer any injury if he is evicted. Considering these submissions, I directed the appellate authority to examine the matter and record a specific finding as to what is the plan to construct the nursing home and place required for it. He was further required to appoint a Commissioner to prepare a map as to whether the petitioner has some space adjoining to the shop in question where hecan carry on business. The appellate authority has sub mitted its findings. It has been found that the landlady had submitted a map for sanc tion of the construction before the Nagar Palika on 28-12-1990. The length and width of the nursing home was 57' x 21'. On first floor 8 rooms and on the ground floor similarly 8 rooms were proposed to be constructed. The proposed nursing home covers the area of the accommodation under the tenancy of the petitioner. The petitioner has not shown that the map submitted for sanction by Respondent No. 2 was incorrect.;