Sudhir Chandra Verma, J. - (1.) THE release application of the landlord for premises No. 86/202 Raipurwa, Kanpur, consisting of two rooms, used as shop, measuring 8' x 6' 5" and 5" x 6' 5" alongwith chabutra at a rent of Rs. 10 per month, has been rejected by the 1st Additional District Judge, Kanpur, by an order dated 21st December, 1987. The release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was allowed by the Prescribed authority holding that the need of the landlord for setting up of business for her husband and son Sheo Kumar Gupta and the second son Dilip Kumar Gupta was held to be bona fide and genuine.
(2.) ON appeal by the tenant respondent No. 2 the release application was rejected holding that the needs of the landlord are not bona fide and genuine. The order dated 21st December, 1987 has been impugned in the present petition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner landlord, learned Ist Additional District Judge while arriving at the finding that the need is not genuine failed to consider that the eldest son Sheo Kumar Gupta, who was doing parchun business in a rented shop No. 86/143, Raipurwa, has to vacate the same by 31st December, 1991. There was prolonged litigation for eviction of this shop and ultimately by a compromise time upto 31st December 1990 has been granted by the landlord of the premises. This business, in any view of the matter, requires to be shifted in the disputed accommodation and there is no other shop available. As regards, the observations of the learned judge that Sheo Kumar Gupta is doing another flourishing business at 86/231 Raipurwa, Kanpur, it was clarified that this was in a rented accommodation and the constructions are absolutely illegal, unauthorised and the same may have to be vacated at any time. Moreover, the business conducted at shop No. 86/143 Raipurwa, has not been stopped.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further urged that the accommodation is also required to establish the chamber of the Advocate son of the landlady. It was also brought to my notice that the tenant had three other accommodation owned by him and in the adjoining accommodation No. 85/112 the business of the tenant can be shifted.;