- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order of the prescribed authority dated 9-1-1997 allowing the release application filed by the landlord-respondent and the order of the appellate authority dated 10-5- 1999 dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that respondent No. 3 filed an application for release of the disputed shop under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 with allegations that he has been running a Dal Mill under the name and style of M/s. Babulal Mathura Prasad Dal Mill which is a partnership business and the Mill is situated in premises No. 291/1, Muthiganj, Allahabad. The other partnership firm in which he is the partner is Prakash Dal Mill situated in house No. 2914, Muthiganj, Allahabad. He is only a partner and has some share in the said business. He wants to carry on independent business. He has also two sons. The petitioaer is a tenant of shop No. 292, Muthiganj, Allahabad. It was alleged that he would carry on business with his sons in the disputed shop. The petitioner contested the ap plication and denied that the need of the landlord is bona fide. The prescribed authority has recorded a finding that the need of the landlord- respondent is bona fide as alleged by 'him. This finding has been affirmed by the appellate authority. These orders have been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. I have heard Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri M. M. D. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding on the question of bona fide need recorded by the authorities below. I have perused the im pugned orders. It has been found that respondent No. 3 has only share in some other business. He requires the disputed shop to carry on independent business and his two sons also require the disputed shop to carry on business. I do not find this finding suffers from error of law. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the disputed shop is a big one having an area 20 feet wide facing the road and 48feet inside On 11-4-1999 I directed the appellant- authority to appoint an Advocate Com missioner to submit report regarding the exact measurement of the shop alter making a local inspection. In pursuance of the said order the appellate authority ap pointed a Commissioner and he has sub mitted a detailed report along with a map. There is no objection in regard to this report and the map. The petitioner is car rying on grain business, tie has also ob tained licence from the Mandi Samiti. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has a shop in the Mandi Samiti. Learned coun sel for the petitioners has denied this fact and secondly, it is submitted even if he might be having a shop in Mandi Samiti, it is far away from the city itself and his business will be affected.;