U.C.Srivastava, J. - (1.) This tenant's petition is directed against the order passed by the 1st Additional District Judge allowing the landlord's appeal against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting his application under section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The landlord-opposite party No. 2 filed an application under section 21 of the Act against the petitioner in respect of the premises in his possession which is known as Hata consisting of one Kotha, tin-shed and Sahan closed from all the sides which adjoins the western house of the petitioner bearing Municipal Nos. 294 and 295 consisting of two shops and three big rooms out of which two rooms are for 'Karkhana' under the tenancy of one Rashid and one room is used as Godown. Opposite party No. 2 filed the application for release of the said accommodation on the ground that he has got a big family consisting of six sons out of whom four are in separate business and the other two sons who have grown up are going to he married shortly and have no independent business of their own. It was further alleged by him that be had fixed a 'Ata Chakki' which had to be closed due to paucity of accommodation and he would like raise the constructions in the accommodation which is in the tenancy of the tenant for his two sons. A complaint for raising unauthorised constructions by the tenant was also made by the landlord, which proceedings are going on.
(2.) The application of release filed by the tenant was resisted by the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the landlord has a big business which is being carried on jointly by the entire family and the other two sons of the landlord are also not out of employment and are doing the same business with their father. Stoppage of 'Ata Chakki' for the time being was also admitted, but so far as the accommodation by the tenant is concerned it was stated by him that the same cannot be used for tying cattle and there was no accommodation with him from which he could carry on business of Dairy Farm which he is carrying on for the last several years on that place.
(3.) Before the Prescribed Authority number of documents including affidavits were filed. A Commissioner was also appointed by the Prescribed Authority who reported the accommodation owned by the landlord and the work which was going on there. He also found that 'Ata Cnakki' was in working order and there were two motors fitted out of which one was in working order and two sons of the landlord were also getting power from the same. The Prescribed Authority after taking into consideration the respective contentions of the parties rejected the application of release filed by the landlord and came to the conclusion that the landlord had failed to prove his bona fide need and none of his sons were unemployed for want of accommodation.;