Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri B.R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that respondent No. 2 Smt. Kanis Fatima, who is a landlady of the shop situated in Mohalla Jahanbad district Raebareli, moved an application on 11.11.2003(Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 inter alia stating therein that the shop in question is needed in order to establish a business for his son Azaz Askari, who is unemployed youth. Accordingly, a P. A. Case No. 6 of 2003 {Smt. Kanis Fatima v. Mohd. Hussain) registered before the Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 14, Raebareli. After exchange of pleadings between the parties, prescribed authority came to the conclusion that the need of landlady is bona fide and genuine in comparison to tenant, allowed release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by order dated 15.12.2009.
(3.) WHILE allowing the release application, the prescribed authority recorded a finding that from the date of filling of release application moved by the landlady, tenant does not make any effort to search alternate accommodation. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant/ petitioner filed Rent Appeal No. 7 of 2010 (Mohd. Hussainv. Smt. Kanis Fatima), dismissed vide order dated 19.5.2010 passed by District Judge, Raebareli. The appellate authority while dismissing the appeal confirmed the findings given by the prescribed authority in respect to the bona fide need on the part of land lady to get the shop released and also that since the date of moving of release application by the landlord/ respondent No. 2, no efforts have been made by the tenant/petitioner to search any alternate accommodation.;