S.C.Verma - (1.) LIST has been revised.
(2.) HEARD Sri S. N. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondents is not present. The tenant petitioner challenged the order of the prescribed authority dated 5-9-1981 and the appellate authority dated 25-5-1982 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Varanasi, in proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act no. 13 of 1972, The disputed premises formed part of house no. C-31/31 situate in Mohalla Englishia line, Varanasi, of which the respondent no. 3 is the landlord and the shop in dispute was let out to the petitioner in the year 1972. In the release application it was alleged that the son of the landlord is to be settled in business, who after becoming major is sitting idle and wanted to do hosiery business in the disputed shop. The need was expressed to be bonafide and genuine. On the other hand, it was alleged that the tenant was doing business of newspaper agency and he would not be put to any loss in case he was evicted from the disputed shop.
(3.) THE tenant petitioner contested the proceedings and alleged that the landlord has been running tea and betal shop in the same building and has sufficient income. THE landlord is seventy years of age and his business is now being looked after by his son and he does not require any accommodation to settle the son separately, THE landlord demolished part of the roof of the disputed shop during emergency period but it was repaired after the tenant's application was allowed under section 28 of the Act. THE tenant would be put to greater hardship as he has no accommodation to shift his business. The prescribed authority considering the need of the landlord to settle his son in the hosiery business allowed the application and also found that the tenant would be put to lessor hardship.;