O.P.Garg, J. - (1.) The dispute in this writ petition pertains to the release of shop No. 85 (old premises numbers 286, 288 and 289) situate in Subhash Bazar, Meerut city. The said shop was originally owned by one Jagdish Chand Gera and was under the tenancy of late Dr. Jitendra Vir, who was running the business of sale of homeopathic medicines. After the death of the original tenant, his son Pradeep Kumar Rastogi, the present petitioner inherited the tenancy rights and is carrying on the business of sale of homeopathic medicines from the disputed shop. He is paying monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 57.50 p. Vivek Gupta-respondent No. 3 had purchased the property, in question, from the previous owner Jagdish Chand Gera in the year 1988.
(2.) He filed an application for release of the tenanted accommodation under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was registered as P.A. case No. 23 of 1994. The case of the landlord-respondent No. 3 was that he is in occupation of a tenanted shop situate in a closed lane of Khair Nagar Bazar, Meerut since the year 1989 at an exorbitant monthly rent of Rs. 1,300 and that the provisions of the Act also do not apply to the said shop. According to the landlord, he was under the threat for vacating the tenanted shop in Khair Nagar Bazar and, therefore, has a bona fide and genuine need to occupy the tenanted shop in occupation of the petitioner Pradeep Kumar Rastogi. It was also averred that the tenanted shop in dispute was eminently suited for carrying out the business of ready-made garments. The petitioner resisted the various allegations of the landlord-respondent No. 3 and contested the petition on a variety of grounds. The Prescribed Authority allowed the release petition of the landlord-respondent No. 3 by order dated 18.8.2000 and the present petitioner was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the tenanted shop to the landlord-respondent No. 3 within the specified period subject to payment of compensation equivalent to two years rent. The petitioner preferred a rent Appeal No. 243 of 2000 under Section 22 of the Act. The appeal was also dismissed on 25.10.2000 by XVIth Additional District Judge, Meerut-respondent No. 1. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come forward before this Court by filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order of release passed by the Prescribed Authority and as confirmed in appeal.
(3.) At the lime of admission of the present petition, Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned senior advocate, assisted by Sri Pushkar put in appearance on behalf of the landlord-respondent No. 3. On behalf of the petitioner. Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Anurag Khanna had appeared. Learned counsel for both the parties agreed that the petition be finally disposed of on merits on the basis of material available on record. I have, therefore, heard this petition, on merits, at the admission stage in view of the agreement between the learned counsel for the parties and proceed to decide the same on merits.;