- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel for the respondent caveator. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 5.9.2007 and 29.4.2010 by which the release application of the respondent landlord has been allowed by both the Courts below.
(2.) It appears that the respondent landlord preferred an application of re-lease under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was registered as P.A. Case No. 51 of 1999 inter alia with the allegation that the respondent was the owner and landlord of the disputed shop wherein the petitioner was a tenant at Rs. 80/- per month and since he was only intermediate pass, had no vocation except for looking after his agricultural land situated at 16 kms. from the City through his servants, he needed the disputed shop to settle himself and to enhance his income as he had now become of marriageable age while the petitioner tenant generally keeps the disputed shop closed and except for the disputed shop he had no other premises for himself. The petitioner tenant contested the aforesaid release application claiming that the family of the landlord are well settled persons having several shops and buildings in their name and there was no need for him to get the disputed shop released.
(3.) Both the Courts below, after considering the evidence on record, have recorded categorical findings of bona fide need in favour of the landlord and have held that in case the application is rejected, the landlord will suffer a greater hardship.;