Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 19.03.2013 passed in Rent Appeal No. 10 of 2011 (Shiv Narain Agarwal v. Ved Prakash) by Additional District Judge (Court NO. 12), Lucknow and judgment and order dated 22.01.2011 passed by Learned Prescribed Authority, Lucknow/Additional Judge, SCC-II in P.A. Case No. 16 of 2004.
(2.) Admitted facts between the parties are that the petitioner is the tenant of the disputed premises of which Opposite party No. 3 is the landlord, who moved application under Section 21 (i) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on the ground of personal requirement. The landlord has alleged that he has two sons aged 31 years and 27 years and he is a retired Government servant. His elder sons has got a shop where he is engaged. The petitioner intends to establish his second son in business in the disputed premises for which he served the tenant with notice dated 14.02.2004 but the tenant did not vacate. Hence, the application was moved before learned Prescribed Authority. The tenant/petitioner before this Court contested the case and denied the bona fide requirement of the landlord and denied the contents of notice dated 14.02.2004. It was further pleaded that he is carrying on business of general merchantise in the disputed shop since 1960, which is the only source of his livelihood. The landlord did not accept rent since 1990. Hence he has deposited the rent under Section 30 of the Act. The landlord has got big shop having two shutters, in which P.C.O./Sweet Shop and general merchantise shop is being run by his elder son. The second son of the landlord is employed somewhere privately. The tenant-petitioner did not disclose as to where the second son of the landlord is employed.
(3.) Both the parties led evidence before the learned Prescribed Authority and after conclusion of the hearing the learned Prescribed Authority reached to the conclusion that the landlord has succeeded in establishing his bona fide requirement to the disputed shop and that he would suffer greater hardship if the release application is not allowed in comparison to the tenant. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the tenant preferred rent appeal which has also been dismissed. Hence, he has preferred this writ petition.;