Om Prakash, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed by the landlord against the order of the learned Additional District Judge Kanpur affirming the order of the Prescribed Authority rejecting the application of the petitioner made under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (briefly, the Act, 1972). In para. 7 of the application made under Section 21 of the Act, Annexure 1 to the writ petition, the petitioner averred, "that the opposite -party is a tenant of the portion consists of only one room shop of the premises in question on monthly rent of Rs. 5/." In para. 8 of the said application the petitioner further alleged: - - That the opposite party has been doing business primarily of betels and cigarettes. He has also kept a few other articles in very small quantities and his shop is a petty shop........ From these averments, it is clear that the premises have been used for commercial purposes. The learned Additional District Judge, respondent No. 3 adverting to Rule 16(2) of the Rules, 1972 held that the opposite party having been in occupation of the commercial premises for the last 42 years, there is no justification for allowing the petitioner's application. I do not see any error in this conclusion. There is no case of the petitioner that the opposite party ceased to be the owner of the business. Sri S.M. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the opposite party had shifted to his village and his son has been running the business. From the shifting of residence no inference can be drawn that the opposite party cease to be the owner of the business nor is it the case of the petitioner. The opposite party having run the business for about last 42 years, the provisions of Rule 16(2)(a) of the Rules, 1972 are clearly attracted and the learned Additional District Judge rightly found that there is no justification in allowing the petitioner's application. The case of the petitioner is that he wanted to start some business in the disputed premises to augment his income as he is having greater family obligations to be discharged. The learned Additional District Judge observed that the petitioner has rental income from four tenants; that his elder daughter has already been married; that his two sons are employed, that he sold a part of the house for Rs. 47500/ -, that he got his provident fund on his retirement from Government service, that he has four Bighas agricultural land and other sources of income. Considering all these facts and the legal position, I hold that there is no error in the judgment of the respondent No. 3.
(2.) FOR the reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the parties will bear their own costs.;