- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order of prescribed authority dated 8-12-1994 al lowing the release application and the order of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order.
(2.) THE landlord-respondent filed ap plication for release of the disputed shop with the allegation that he is unemployed and wants to carry on business in the dis puted shop. It is alleged that Ratan Lal is his grand-father and adopted him and he succeeded Ratan Lal. It was further stated that Ratan Lal executed a Will on 13-8-1994 and under this Will the shop in dis pute was bequeathed in his favour. The petitioner contested the ap plication and denied that there was no adoption. It was further stated that the mother of the landlord owns three shops which are vacant and available to him to carry on business. The prescribed authority recorded the finding that Ratan Lal had executed a Will and the landlord- respondent became owner of the property. He needs the disputed shop and on comparative hardship it was found that in case the application is rejected he would suffer greater hardship. The application was allowed and the ap peal against the said order was dismissed by the appellate authority. This order has been challenged in this writ petition.
(3.) I have heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel for the respon dents. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that Rajbala is natural mother of the landlord- Respondent No. 3 and she is owner of three other shops which are vacant and available to the landlord- respondent No. 3 wherein he can carry on his business.;