S.D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings for release of a shop under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The accommodation in dispute is a shop No. 9/201, situate in Mahabirganj, Aligarh, The release application was moved by Smt. Chandramukhi Devi, wife of Dharam Pal, who is respondent No. 3 in this petition. The petitioner is the tenant. The release application was filed in the year 1981. In the release application, it was stated by the respondent No. 3 that the disputed shop was purchased by her by means of a sale deed dated 14th October, 1977. It was further stated that the said shop had been acquired for her own use and she had no other shop for purpose of setting up her sons in business.
(2.) THE release application was contested by the petitioner. He, in his written statement, asserted that the husband of the respondent No. 3 are four brothers, namely, Hazari Lal, Kishori Lal, Dharam Pal and Jaipal. These four brothers were carrying on joint family business in the name and style of the firm M/s. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal. A plea was set up in the written statement that these four brothers had adopted a device of purchasing the properties in which the tenants of long standing were in occupation at throw away prices and later, file an application for release on false grounds. It was further stated that the tenants were in occupation of the shop in dispute for the last forty years and that the family of the respondent No. 3 had several houses and shops and she had no bona fide requirement for the disputed shop. It was specifically pleaded in the written statement that in respect of property No. 9/201, Mahabirganj, Aligarh, respondent No. 3 along with other owners of the said property had succeeded in the litigation against Babu Lal and possession was going to be handed over and the said property which consisted of a big shop was sufficient for the respondent No. 3 Other pleas were also taken in the written statement pleading therein that in fact, the need of the respondent No. 3 was not at all bona fide and the release application had been filed with oblique motives. In the written statement also, a specific plea was taken that on 26th May, 1981, the husband of the respondent No. 3 had sold a building, situate in the main bazar of Aligarh to Sri Pooran Chand and Sri Ashok Kumar. This building included a shop also. The land on which this building had been constructed had been purchased from one Ikram. The case set up was that in case really the shop in dispute was required by the sons of the respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 3 would not have permitted her husband to sell away the property to third parties which included a shop where the sons of the respondent No. 3 could have easily carried on the business which the sons may propose to carry.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority by its order dated 5th February, 1983, held that the need of respondent No. 3 was bona fide and, consequently, allowed the release application. Against the order dated 5th February, 1983, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Aligarh, under Section 22 of the Act. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 23rd April, 1984. The orders of the Prescribed Authority dated 5th February, 1983, and that of the Appellate Authority dated 23rd April, 1984, have been challenged in the present petition.;