S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent No. 3 under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, on the ground of bona fide need. Release application numbered as U.P. U. B. Case No. 18 of 1981, was dismissed by prescribed authority/Munsif, Koil. Aligarh through judgment and order dated 12.12.1983, landlord respondent filed appeal against the said order under Section 22 of the Act being U.P. U.B. Appeal No. 5 of 1984. The appeal was allowed by XIth Additional District Judge. Aligarh, through judgment and order dated 12.2.1993. The appellate court reversed the judgment of the prescribed authority and allowed the release application of the landlord. This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid judgment passed by the appellate court.
(2.) The only point argued and required to be decided in this case is as to what would be the effect of dismissal of earlier release application, filed by landlord respondent No. 3, against the tenant petitioner.
(3.) Initially, under old Rent Control Act, landlord filed application for permission to file suit against the tenant, which was rejected by District Magistrate, in the year 1966 and revision filed by the landlord against the same before the State Government was also dismissed in the same year. Thereafter in the year 1975 landlord respondent No. 3 filed release application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which was registered as P.A. Case No. 86 of 1975 and was rejected by prescribed authority by an order dated 5.5.1976 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). Appeal against the same being appeal No. 74 of 1976 was also dismissed on 17.10.1977 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). In the earlier release application, the case set up was that there was a family partition in which shop in dispute fell in the share of landlord Rishi Kumar who needed the shop for starting his own business. The earlier release application was rejected on the following grounds : (i) Landlord had no experience of the business of selling ready-made garments and general merchandise. (ii) Landlord was carrying on a business of commission agency. (iii)Family partition was recognised and effected through court decree, however, inspite of that family remained joint or at least they carried jointly their business.;