M.P. Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a tenant of the premises which is a non -residential accommodation. It is in the shape of a Gher with three Khaprail room one Kothri, in front of which is & plate -form. Opposite parties No. 3 and 4 filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 for release of the disputed premises alleging that they were working only as labourers. Their earning was not sufficient to meet the requirements of the family, They wanted to set up a saw machine business in the said premises. They have acquired sufficient experience in the business while working as labourers in a saw machine. The need was said to be bona fide and genuine. In case the said premises was not released then greater hardship would be caused to them.
(2.) THE petitioner contested the said application denying bona fide need of the opposite parties. In case the premises was released then greater hardship would be caused to him. The Prescribed Authority released a part of the accommodation in possession of the petitioner. One Kothri and Chabutra were allowed to be retained by the petitioner. The rent was also proportionately reduced to Rs. 25 per month.
(3.) THE landlords believing the principle of live and let live did not file any appeal and were satisfied with the release of a part of the accommodation, but the petitioner filed an appeal under 22 of the Act before the learned District Judge.;