N.D.Ojha, J. - (1.) The petitioner is the landlord of two adjoining shops which are occupied by respondents 3 and 4, who are brothers, as tenants. An application was made by the petitioner for release of these two shops in his favour under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) on the allegations that two of his sons bad left their studies and were to be engaged in business. The application was contested by respondents 3 and 4. The Presribed Authority, however, came to the conclusion that the need of the petitioner was bona fide. After recording the finding about the bona fide need of the petitioner, the Prescribed Authority proceeded to consider the question of comparative hardship of the parties. It came to the conclusion that so far as Bankey Lal, respondent No. 3, is concerned, greater hardship would be caused to him in the event of the release application being allowed than the likely hardship to the petitioner on the refusal of the said application. On this finding, he dismissed the release application so far as respondent No. 3 is concerned. As regards respondent No. 4 the Prescribed Authority held that it had been established that he had abandoned the business which was being carried on by him in the shop under his tenancy and had shifted to his village to assist his father in cultivation. On this finding, the Prescribed Authority was of the view that the hardship which was likely to be caused to the petitioner in the event of the release application being dismissed would be greater than the hardship which would be caused to respondent No. 4 on the said application being allowed. On this finding the application for release was allowed as against respondent No. 4. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner filed an appeal in so far his application against respondent No. 3 had been dismissed. Another appeal was filed by respondent No. 4 allowing the release application against him. Both these appeals came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge, Agra, respondent No. 1. By the impugned order dated 31st May, 1977, respondent No. 1 dis- missed the appeal of the petitioner and allowed that of respondent Na. 4. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the quashing of the order of the Prescribed Authority in so far as his application for release against respondent No. 3 has been dismissed as also the quashing of the order of respondent No. 1 in its entirety.
(2.) It was urged by counsel for the petitioner that, even without considering the material evidence produced by the petitioner, the Additional District Judge has reversed the finding of the Prescribed Authority not only on the question of comparative hardship so far as the petitioner and respondent No. 4 are concerned, but has also made an unwarranted observation that if the sons of the petitioner also wanted to start business more money could be invested in the existing business and in this way the petitioner could augment his income.
(3.) Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of opinion that that the submission of the petitioner's counsel is well founded.;