- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order of the prescribed authority dated 3. 5. 1985 rejecting the release application filed by the landlord-respondent and the order of the appellate authority dated 26. 10. 1985 dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order.
(2.) THE petitioner is landlord of the disputed shop of which respondent No. 3 is tenant. He filed application for release of the shop in question under Section 21 (l) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regula tion of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) for release with the allegations that he was running as sweet meat shop in the disputed shop but due to illness he had closed the same and now again he wants to start the business. It was further stated that his son, Zia-ul-Nabi, who is aged about 24 years, needs the shop to run the business. THE application was contested by respondent No. 3. It was denied that the petitioner needs the dis puted shop to carry on the business. THE prescribed authority rejected the application on 3. 5. 1985. THE petitioner preferred an appeal and the appeal has been dis missed by respondent No. 1 by the im pugned order dated 26. 10. 1985. Heard learned Counsel for the par ties. The appellate authority has not accepted the bonafide need of the landlord mainly for two reasons. Firstly, the landlord is alleged to have a sweetmeat shop but he appears to have closed the business sometime in the year 1979. Sub sequently he filed an application for release on the ground that the shop was in a dilapidated condition. In that applica tion it was nowhere stated by him that he required the shop for carrying on any busi ness. It may be that at one time the landlord may not require the shop to carry on business but at a subsequent stage, he may carry on business. It was not found that the petitioner was carrying any other business. The second ground to reject the version of the petitioner was that he had filed an application for release of a shop against another tenant on the ground that the said shop was in a dilapidated condi tion. His application was allowed but after the said application was allowed he did not reconstruct the shop. The contention of the petitioner is that even if the shop had been constructed, the tenant of the said shop was entitled to get it re-allotted under Section 24 of the Act. This itself is not a ground to reject the plea of the petitioner that he does not require the disputed shop to carry on business.
(3.) THERE is another aspect, the petitioner had set up the need for his son, Zia-ul-Nabi but no finding has not recorded in respect of his need by respon dent No. 1. The petitioner had also offered another alternative accommodation to the tenant to carry on business but this offer was also rejected on the ground that as the need was not found bonafide, the question of consideration of offer of alternative ac commodation did not arise.;