D.P. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel for the respondent caveator. This petition by the tenant is directed against concurrent orders allowing an application of release in favour of the respondent landlord under Sec. 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) It appears that the respondent landlord moved an application under Sec. 21(1)(a) of the Act which was registered as P.A. Case No. 1 of 2005 with the allegations that he was the owner and landlord of the disputed shop which was in the tenancy of the petitioner at the rate to Rs. 500/ - per month but she defaulted in payment of rent from 1.11.2001. It was further stated that he himself was Doctor practicing in a rented shop but his son, who has obtained a B.M.S. Degree from Bangalore, has returned to Jhansi but has nowhere to practice his profession and therefore, the said shop was required to settled him as there is no other premises available.
(3.) The petitioner filed his objection denying tenancy and the ownership of the respondent and claimed that the disputed premises was settled in his favour by the brother of the erstwhile owner and the need of the respondent was neither genuine nor bona fide.;