Bhupendra Kumar Rathi, J. - (1.) THE Respondent No. 3 moved an application for release of the shop situated in Premises No. 45/92, Chappar Mahal, Kanpur under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 against the petitioner, Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The application for release was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 20th July, 1998, Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred rent appeal No. 128 of 1998 under Section 22 of the Act, which have been dismissed on 21st July, 1999, Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have heard Sri S.M. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 and the learned Standing counsel.
(2.) IT has been argued by Sri S.M. Dayal, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the premises was purchased by the Respondent No. 3 in the year 1983. She filed application for release alleging that the family of the Respondent No. 3, landlady consists of herself, her husband and two sons that both the sons are without any employment and the shop is required for starting business by them; It is contended that during the pendency of the writ petition, husband of the respondent landlady has died, who was carrying on business in a different shop; that the sons are now carrying on the business in the said premises. However, it cannot be accepted that both the sons are engaged in the business in the said premises and have no need of the shop in dispute. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has mainly stressed regarding the hardship. It is contended that Prabhu Dayal Gaur was the original tenant of the premises, who left two sons, Sudhakar Gaur, the present petitioner and his brother Prabhakar Gaur and the widow. That an application has been filed against Sudhakar, the present petitioner. That his need and hardship has not been considered for the reasons that he is not carrying on business in the shop and has vacated the same and handed over its possession to his brother, Prabhakar. That he is also the tenant of the shop after the death of his father as an heir. That the Court below therefore has erred in not considering the need and the hardship of the petitioner.
(3.) AS against this it has been argued by Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 that there are concurrent findings of both the Courts below that the petitioner became tenant after the death of his father and has paying rent. That Prabhakar was in fact doing pairvi in the case as he is carrying the business in the shop in dispute and is affected by the release order. That he signed the order sheets in the Court below and remained present and contested the matter.;