Anil Kumar - (1.) HEARD Sri Anu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kaushlendra Tewari, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner challenged the order dated dated 31.5.1985 passed by the Appellate Authority/Additional District Judge, Bahraich in Rent Appeal No. 43 of 1983. The facts, in brief, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the controversy relates to shop situate at Chowk Bazar Nanpara, Bahraich which is bounded as under : East - Shop Muzaffar Ali West- Shop Ram Kumar alias Puttan Pandey (deceased) which is in possession of his son Babu Lal Pandey. North- road side market South- Aahata of Devi Prasad Vaish. It is submitted by iearned counsel for the petitioner that the said shop was under the tanancy of one Sri Abdul Salam at the monthly rent of Rs. 90/-. On 2.3.1982, Lalji/landlord moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 for release of shop in question on the ground that same is needed to establish the business which is to be run by him with the help of his grandson, who is unemployed to earn his livelihood.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY a P.A. Case No. 5 of 1982 registered before the Prescribed Authority Bahraich. In the said matter, on 20.11.1982 tenant filed written statement and after exchange of pleadings as well as evidence between the parties, the prescribed authority vide order dated 23.4.1983 allowed the application under Section 21(1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of shop in question. Aggrieved by the said order, tenant filed an appeal (Rent Appeal No. 43 of 1983), allowed vide order dated 31.5.1985 passed by appellate authority/Additional District Judge, Bahraich, hence the present writ petition filed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;