Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) TENANT petitioner has filed this petition against judgment and order dated 6.11.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Saharanpur, by which rent control appeal No. 18 of 2010 preferred by the landlord respondent has been allowed. Release Application No. 38 of 2009, under Section 21 (1 )(a) of UP. Act No. 13 of 1972, was filed by the landlord respondent setting up need of the shop in question for their son Tushar Goel. It was stated in the release application that they wanted to settle him in the business of readymade garments in the shop in question and that there are other shops of readymade garments in the vicinity, as such there is good scope of business in readymade garments for their son Tushar Goel. The tenant petitioner contested the case by filing his written statement stating that the landlord is doing business in the name and style M/s Goel Industries which is involved in manufacturing of accessories of bearing; that they have several shops in their possession and that landlords have also purchased one more house in Mohalla Tilak Nagar which can be used by them. Apart from above, it was also averred in the written statement that since the shop in question is the only source of livelihood of the tenant, release application of the landlord may be rejected as need of the landlord is not bona fide and the tenant petitioner would suffer comparatively more hardships if release is ordered.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 7.8.2010 rejected the release application of the landlord holding that as there were several shops in possession of the landlord, his need for establishing the son in disputed shop was not bona fide. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Rent Control Appeal No. 18 of 2010 was filed by the landlord respondent. Alongwith application paper No. 6-Ga, certain documents were also filed by the landlord, to which reply was filed by the petitioner.;