- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent caveator. This petition is directed against concurrent judgments by which release application of the respondent landlord has been allowed by both the Courts below.
(2.) The respondent landlord preferred an application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the disputed shop inter alia with the allegation that the petitioner was a tenant of the disputed shop at Rs. 50/- per month apart from water charges which is situated on the ground floor of the building wherein the landlords were residing in the first floor and he was carrying on a flour mill and he has become very old and cannot run any shop and all his sons are well employed and she needs the said shop to settle her son Pradeep Kumar who was dealing with the glasses and glassware but due to paucity of accommodation, he has not been able to settle his business properly. During pendency of the application, Pradeep Kumar died and thereafter the application was amended and the need of his wife was substituted. The petitioner tenant contested the said application inter alia on the ground that he is now operating a general merchant shop from the disputed accommodation and he could not shift the shop from the residential accommodation and except the present shop, there was no other source of livelihood of the petitioner.
(3.) After the parties has led their evidence, both the Courts below have allowed the release application.;