Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's writ petition arising out of release proceedings under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 initiated by landlord respondent No. 3. Both the Courts below have released one shop/one portion of the shop in favour of the landlord. The release application registered as P.A. Case No. 37 of 1986, was allowed through judgment and order dated 22.5.1990 passed by Prescribed Authority, Bareilly. Both the parties filed appeals being Rent Control Appeal No. 110 of 1990 by the tenant and Rent Control Appeal No. 111 of 1990 by the landlord. Additional District Judge, VI, Bareilly, dismissed both the appeals through judgment and order dated 11.9.1995. This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid judgment.
(2.) BOTH the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of bona fide need in favour of the landlord and held that the landlord bonafidely needed the shop for establishing his son Mukesh Kumar in business. The said finding is based upon correct appraisal of evidence and does not require any interference in exercise of power under writ jurisdiction. The other shops alleged by the tenant to be at the disposal of the landlord have rightly been found to be not actually available and suitable by the both Courts below. Both Courts below have found that the business of the Ataa Chakki is being carried out by the tenant only in one of the two tenanted shops (one of the two portions of the tenanted shop) and in any case from one of the shops (one of the portion of the shop) the said business can very easily be carried out. The order releasing only one of the two shops (one portion of the two portions of the shop) in dispute is eminently just and proper. It is also important to note that bigger shop/portion has been left with the tenant and smaller one has been released. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ petition, it is accordingly dismissed. ;