- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE tenant petitioner is challenging the validity and correctness of order dated 2.1.2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Budaun in R.C.C. no. 1 of 2001 as well as order dated 26.10.2010 passed by the appellate authority in Rent Appeal No. 12 of 2008. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the aforesaid orders on the ground that in view of the provisions of section 34 and 38 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction ) Act, 1972 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act no. 13 of 1972 ), it was a right of the petitioner to get any relevant evidence which he proposed to adduce, admitted and even after admitting the additional evidence, the appellate court did not advert to the same.
(3.) IT is stated that additional evidence of the petitioner was admitted in evidence by order dated 12.3.2010 but the same has not been considered by the appellate court and if the evidence would have been considered, then it would have been amply proved that there were four new shops available to the respondent landlord in which they could easily carry out their business. However, in this case both the courts below have tried to find out as to whether the tenant petitioner had bonafide need or not. Next contention of the counsel for petitioner is that two shops belonging to family members of the petitioner are occupied by petitioner's brother and mother. According to him, one of the shops was in occupation of his brother - Darshan Kumar and another shop was in occupation of his other brothers- Praveen Kumar and Naresh Kumar and hence the courts below have erred in taking into consideration those two shops occupied by his brothers where the petitioner could shift his business.;