- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Contesting respondents are represented, but neither any counter affidavit has been filed nor anyone has appeared even in the revised call.
(2.) Petitioner-landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 Act seeking release of the shop in dispute setting up personal need to settle his younger son, Rakesh Kumar in business. Application was filed on the allegation that respondent no. 1 is a tenant of the disputed shop on monthly rent of Rs.45/- and the shop was required to settle his younger son, who was unemployed, in the business of general merchandise. It was further pleaded that he earns a sum of Rs.200/- per month as hawker of newspapers. The application was contested by the tenant on the ground that release application has been filed on frivolous ground as Rakesh Kumar is not unemployed, but he is earning near about Rs.6000/- per month from the news agency as hawker. It was also pleaded that the tenant is running a shop of radio mechanic and has no other source of income and if he is evicted, he will have no means of livelihood. Evidence was led by both the parties and the Prescribed authority vide judgment and order dated 03.05.1999 held that the need of landlord was bona fide and genuine and he was suffering greater hardship and, accordingly, allowed the release application. Tenant-respondent went up in appeal. Lower appellate court vide impugned judgment and order dated 01.12.2006 set aside the finding recorded by the trial court, allowed the appeal and rejected the release application.
(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court after analysis of the entire evidence brought on record by the parties, recorded findings of bona fide and comparative hardship in favour of the landlord, but the same has wrongly and illegally been reversed by the lower appellate court without considering the evidence. It has further been urged that finding of the lower appellate court is on the basis of a certificate that son of the landlord was paid a sum of Rs.18,000/- for part time service for the period of 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001. He has further submitted that the finding that Rakesh Kumar was permanent employee of the said firm, is based on surmises and conjunctures not supported by any evidence.;