M.P.Singh - (1.) PETITIONERS are the tenants of the shop in question.
(2.) OM Prakash, opposite party No. 3, filed an application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for release of the shop. The need set up by him was that his son Yogesh Kumar was un-employed. He was not highly educated. He wanted to set up a cloth business in the said shop. There was no other accommodation available to him. It was also alleged that initially Jwala Prasad, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioners No. 2 and 3 was the tenant. After his death his sons joined services at different places. Petitioner No. 1, the widow of Jwala Prasad was living with her sons. The shop in dispute is lying closed. His need was bonafide and genuine. The petitioners contested the said release application stating that opposite party No. 3 was not the owner and landlord. He had no right to file the release application. Earlier also Ramji Lal, father of opposite party No. 3, had filed a release application. That matter came upto the High Court. On 11-1-1980 this court held that need of the landlord was not genuine, with the result the release application was dismissed. The present application is a mala fide one. The opposite party No. 3 was running a flourishing crockery business under the name and style of 'Om Crockery House' and all his sons were engaged in that business. The shop in dispute is situate in Halwai Market, which is not suited for the cloth business. The petitioners have been the tenants for the last more than 50 years and were doing ancestral business of Batasha and Pattal in the said shop. They had acquired a good-will. Since the petitioners had refused to enhance the rent the present release application has been filed. Need of the landlord was not bonafide and genuine. In case if the release application was allowed, greater hardship would be caused to him. The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application. The said order was confirmed by the appellate authority and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed, against which the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) HEARD Sri B. D. Mandhyan, counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ajit Kumar, counsel for the respondent No. 3. Admittedly an application for release was filed by Ramji Lal, father of opposite party No. 3, in the year 1975. The need set up in that application was that he wanted to set up Dinesh Kumar in business. There was no shop available for enabling his son to carry on business. The need which was set up was said to be bonafide and genuine.;