R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition counter and re -joinder affidavits have been filed and both the learned Counsel are agreed that the petition may be disposed of finally at this stage. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 3 -1 -1989, passed by Xth Additional District Judge, Meerut, by which the release application of respondent No. 2 was allowed. Facts giving rise to this petition are that an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed on 17 -2 -1986 by the landlord for release of the shop in dispute. The need mentioned in the application was to settle Harvindar Singh who had passed High School and had left his studies and was sitting idle and unemployed. It was also asserted that petitioner has sub -let the shop in dispute to one Yasin who is doing business in the shop and the petitioner has no need for the shop in dispute and he will not suffer any hardship in case the application is allowed.
(2.) BOTH the parties were allowed to adduce evidence. The prescribed authority after hearing both the parties rejected the application by its order dated 24 -8 -1987. It was found by the prescribed authority that since Harvindar Singh is minor, he is not capable of doing any business, hence the need alleged, in the application cannot be said to be genuine and bona fide. Aggrieved by the order of the prescribed authority respondent landlord filed an appeal which was allowed by the appellate authority on 3 -1 -1989, hence this petition.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned. Counsel for the respondents. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the appellate authority was not justified in giving a finding that petitioner has no need of the shop in dispute as it has been sub -let in favour of Yasin and he is actually doing business. The submission of the learned Counsel is that from the objection filed by petitioner, it was clear that Yasin was doing business from the shop in dispute right from inception of the tenancy and he was there for the last more than 20 years. In this context, paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the objection have been relied. Learned Counsel has also referred to and relied on cases Shyam Babu v. District Judge, Moradabad and others : 1984 (1) ARC 248 and Gulam Rasool v. Smt. Pushpa Devi and others, 1987 (13) ALR 97 (Sum.);, 1987 (2) ARC 294. In both the aforesaid cases it has been stated that while deciding the application for release of the accommodation the need of the sub -tenant should also be taken into consideration provided he was a legal sub -tenant in the building. The prohibition against sub -letting in the form which was introduced by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not there before 15 -7 -1972. The consent of the landlord for subletting could be specific and implied. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the case set up by the petitioner it was clear that Yasin continued to work along with the petitioner right from the beginning of the tenancy. It was obligatory on the appellate authority to consider his need as the landlord never objected and in facts Yasin had been paying the rent.;