A.N.VARMA, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against concurrent orders passed by the Courts below rejecting an application filed by the petitioner who is the landlord of the disputed shop under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
(2.) THE application was filed on assertion that the applicant No. 1 Dinesh Kumar has read only upto 5th class. He left studies in 1967. Thereafter, he worked for sometime as a Home Guard. Now he has been somehow managing to do business in betel, cigarettes and general merchandise in the staircase of his house. The staircase is far too small for the business purposes of the said petitioner. In order that he may effectively carry on, business it was necessary that the disputed shop be released in his favour. The tenant on the other hand is a man of substantial means. He has large landed property and he would not suffer if evicted from the disputed accommodation. The application was contested by the tenant on the assertion that the landlord did not bonafide need the accommodation in dispute. The space in the staircase was sufficient for the sort of business which the landlord was carrying thereon. Besides the landlords are possessed of substantial property and they are doing other business also. In any case, the tenant would suffer very great hardship if evicted because he has no other shop into which he can shift his business. It was wrong to say that the tenant was possessed of substantial agricultural property. The application was, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
(3.) BOTH the authorities have rejected the application of the landlords.;