A.N.Verma, J. - (1.) This petition by a tenant is directed against an order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Mainpuri dated 24.1 1.1979 allowing an appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority whereby the application of respondent No. 3 filed under Section 21(l)(a) of U.P. Act No. X III of 1972 had been rejected.
(2.) These are the relevant facts : The petitioner is and has been a tenant of the accommodation in dispute on a monthly rental of Rs. 10/- for the last forty-six years. The respondent No. 2 is its owner and landlord. The accommodation in dispute is a commercial accommodation in which the petitioner is carrying on the business of repairing and hiring gas lanterns for marriage purposes. The said respondent purchased the accommodation in dispute from its previous owner in the year 1974. Immediately after the purchase, the respondent No. 2 filed an application for an order of eviction against the petitioner on the ground that the accommodation in dispute was in a dilapidated condition and was required for being demolished and reconstructed. This application was made under Section 21(1)(b) of the aforesaid Act. The application was rejected.
(3.) Thereupon, respondent No. 2 made a second application under Section 21(1)(a) of the said Act on the assertion that he was a dental surgeon. He was somehow carrying on his dental clinic in an enclosed verandah measuring 12 feet by 9 feet. This accommodation was unsuitable and inadequate for enabling the said respondent to run his clinic as a dental surgeon as well as to manufacture imitation teeth. Besides the said enclosed verandah was also situate in an inhygienic place being surrounded by latrines. The petitioner, it was asserted, had plenty accommodation available and belonging to him in which he could easily shift his business.;