- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 16th July, 1983 passed by Respondent No. 1 allowing the appeal and dismissing the release application filed by the landlord-petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner filed application under Section 21 (l) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the year 1980 with the allega tions that the disputed shop is in a dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. It was fur ther required for his sons, namely, Lokesh Kumar and Vinai. THE application was contested by the defendant-respondent. THE Prescribed Authority allowed the ap plication. THE tenant-respondent filed an appeal and the appeal was allowed by the impugned order dated 16th July, 1983. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The Appellate Authority has recorded a finding that the disputed shop is not in a dilapidated condition, therefore, the application cannot be allowed under Section 21 (l) (b) of the Act. It has further found that the need for additional accom modation for the business purpose is not genuine and bona fide. These findings have been assailed in this writ petition. ,
(3.) THE question whether the building is in a dilapidated condition or not is a question of fact. I do not find any legal infirmity in this finding. As regards bona fide need, the Ap pellate Court has recorded a finding that the sons of the landlord were jointly carry ing on business with their father. Now 20 years have passed. The situation has changed during the last 20 years. It will be open to the petitioner to file another ap plication under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act and if such application is filed before the Prescribed Authority, the same shall be decided afresh in accordance with law within a period of six month.;