Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against an order of the appellate authority dated 15.2.2000 passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the appeal was allowed and the disputed shop has been released in favour of the landlord -respondent. The respondent is owner and landlord of the disputed shop. He is practising advocate at Meerut. He is residing in the house and on the outer side of his residential house, the disputed shop is situated of which the petitioner is a tenant. Respondent filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, with the allegations that he requires the disputed shop for his chamber for the purpose of his practice. The application was contested by the petitioner on the allegation that the father of the landlord, the respondent, was also a practising advocate but he had his own chamber in a residential portion of the house and the need of the respondent is not bona fide. The prescribed authority rejected the application by his order dated 19.8.1996. The respondents filed an appeal and the appeal has been allowed by the impugned order and the disputed shop has been released in his favour. I have heard Sri B.D. Madhyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding recorded by the appellate authority. It is contended that the respondent has sufficient accommodation for his chamber. The building, a shop in a portion whereof the shop is located is a double storied building. The version of the respondent was that he was residing in the first floor and on the ground floor his wife is running a school. The appellate authority has accepted this fact. It was not denied by the petitioner that the wife of respondent is running a school. The contention of the petitioner was that the school is run outside the house after making temporary constructions and the entire ground floor was vacant and was not being occupied by the respondent for the school. The commissioner submitted report that it has been found that the school is being run on the ground floor of the house. The shop in question is on outer portion of this very building. It was suitable for the purpose of chamber and this position has been accepted by the appellate authority. I do not find any legal infirmity in this finding.
(3.) THE landlord -respondent has offered a shop adjoining the disputed shop shown in the commissioner's map. It is a stationery shop in the name of Saraswati Pustak Bhandar run by his wife. The landlord had has offered this shop to the petitioner and is still prepared to give him.;