- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 24-8-1999 al lowing the release application filed by the landlord-respondent No. 3 under Section 21 (l) (a) of U. P. Act No, 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 22-11-1999 affirming the said order in appeal.
(2.) LANDLORD-respondent No. 3 filed an application for release of the disputed shop with the allegations that he has a shop measuring 10' X 8' and is carrying on busi ness of sale of medicine. He requires the disputed shop to extend business and also provide accommodation to Doctor sitting in Chamber for the purpose of advising the patients whereby the medicine can be sold easily. The petitioner contested the ap plication and denied that the need of the landlord was bonafide. The Prescribed Authority recorded a finding that the version of the respon dent No. 3 is correct and he bonafide needs the accommodation and if his application is rejected, he would suffer a greater hardship. The petitioner has a Hair Cut ting Saloon and he can shift his business at any other place. These orders have been challenged in the present writ petition. I have heard Sri Ravi Shanker Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. M. Dayal, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No. 3 has obtained two other shops converted them into one shop and if he needed the shop, there was no justification for him to con vert those shops into one. The petitioner did not specify such shops and their loca tions. a Commissioner was appointed and he found that the respondent No. 3 has no other alternative accommodation for medical shop. In view of the findings recorded by the authorities below, I do not find that there is any manifest error of law in the impugned orders. The writ petition is, ac cordingly, dismissed.;