G.P. Mathur, J. - (1.) THE landlord has filed this petition for quashing of the appellate order, dated 31 -10 -1989 by which his release application which had been allowed by the Prescribed Authority, has been dismissed in appeal. Parties have exchanged affidavits and, therefore, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage in accordance with the Rule of Court. Landlord -petitioner Badri Nath filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against Krishna Lal (Predecessor -in -interest of respondent Nos. 2 to 9) for release of a shop situate in house No. J. 19/22 Mohalla Jamaluddinpura in the city of Varanasi on 16 -9 -1985. The case of the landlord in brief was that he is the owner of house No. J, 19/22 situate in Mohalla Jamaluddin para which was purchased by him in 1969. The house had seven rooms of very small dimension in the ground floor which were, in occupation of petty shop keepers. When the house was purchased his family consisted of 12 members but there were only four residential rooms in the house. The petitioner carries on the business of 'Zari' in a shop in the same house. He was facing acute hardship on account of paucity of residential accommodation and, therefore; he got the seven rooms on the ground floor vacated and after remodelling he started using them for residential purpose. The petitioner had five sons, namely, Ram Babu aged 35 years, Ramesh Kumar aged 28 years, Suresh Kumar aged 26 years, Dinesh Kumar aged 23 years and Pradeep Kumar aged 21 years, all of whom had finished their education and as they were not interested in service they all wanted to carry on independent business. The eldest son Ram Babu alone had set up his 'Zari' Business in a shop situated in house No. J -19/61 Jamaluddinpura. The remaining four sons of the petitioner were unemployed and, therefore, four separate shops were required for setting them in business. Ramesh Kumar and Suresh Kumar wanted to set up a business of general store for which the shop in the tenancy of Krishna Lal was ideally suited. They had also made arrangement of necessary finances. Dinesh Kumar and Pradeep Kumar were, for the time being working with the petitioner in the Zari shop in order to gain necessary experience. The case of the landlord further was that the tenant Krishna Lal owned a house bearing No. J/63 -A in Mohalla Jaitpura and he was carrying on a big business of cloth and card -board in the said house. He was also carrying on business of card -board in house No. 29/32 Mohalla Baluabir which is owned by Rudra Pratap alias Bachcha Babu and his eldest son was looking after the said business. That apart the tenant was also carrying on hosiery business in a shop in house No. K55/11 Mohalla Ausanganj. It was thus pleaded that the need of the landlord was bona fide and genuine and in view of large and several business being carried on by the tenant and he being in possession of several other shops he would not suffer any hardship if the release application was allowed.
(2.) TENANT Krishna Lal contested the release application on the ground inter alia that he was in occupation of the shop for the last 30 years that the petitioner had got vacated shops on the ground floor of the house and had thereafter converted the same into residential portion and thus the need of the landlord was not bona fide; that the landlord had earlier filed a release application which was registered as P.A. Case No. 12 of 1975, which was dismissed on 16 -3 -1979 and the appeal was dismissed on 30 -1 -1980 and, therefore, the present application was not maintainable; that Ram Babu and his two brothers were carrying on separate business; that the landlord was in fact carrying on money lending business and that Ramesh and Suresh do not want to carry on business of general store but they would carry on the ancestral business of Zari. The parties filed affidavits and documentary evidence in support of their case. After examining the evidence in great detail the Prescribed Authority held that the need of the landlord was bona fide and genuine and that he would suffer hardship in the event of the refusal of the release application. On these findings the release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by order, dated 10 -2 -1988. Tenant Krishna Lal filed an appeal which was allowed by the 9th Addl. District Judge on 20 -10 -1989 and the release application was dismissed. Aggrieved the landlord has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) I have heard Shri Sudhir Jaiswal for the petitioner and Shri R.N. Singh and Shri S.N. Singh for the contesting respondent at length and have examined the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has taken into consideration irrelevant facts and the findings recorded by him are based upon conjectures and surmises. He has also submitted that the relevant provision of law not considered by the Additional District Judge while deciding the appeal and, therefore, his judgment suffers from manifest error of law. Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, submitted that the learned Addl. Distt. Judge has after considering the material on record recorded a finding of fact that the need of the landlord is not bona fide and, therefore, the release application was rightly dismissed and as such there is ground for interfering with the impugned order.;