- (1.) Heard Sri M.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Counsel for the respondents. This writ petition has been preferred by the landlord against the judgment and order of the lower Appellate Court dated 10.8.2009 passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 47 of 2007 arising from the proceeding under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
(2.) The petitioner is the owner and the landlord of the shop in dispute No. 126 K.P. Kakkar road, Allahabad. Respondent No. 1 Sasta Sahitya Mandal is a tenant in the said shop and respondent No. 2 is the secretary of Sasta Sahitya Mandal. The shop in dispute measures about 16' x 16' ft. though there is slight variation in dimension as per report of the Advocate Commissioner on record. Petitioner landlord applied for release of the aforesaid shop under section 21(1)(a) of the Act in the year 1998 on the ground that the shop is bona fidely needed by him for expansion of his business and for the business purpose of his father Gopi Nath Agrawal and elder son Subodh. During the pendency of the proceedings, as the second son of the landlord completed his graduation in the year 2005, an affidavit was also brought on record setting up his business need also. The release application after contest was allowed by the prescribed authority vide judgment and order dated 1.2.2007 only on the need of the two sons of the landlord.
(3.) Aggrieved by the order of release passed by the prescribed authority an appeal was preferred by the respondents before the Additional District Judge. In appeal the need of the two sons has been upheld to be genuine and bona fide as also finding with regard to comparative hardship. However, the appellate authority allowed the appeal in part only and directed for release of half of the shop only and the other half has been permitted to be retained by the tenants.;