Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 20 -9 -1993 passed by the District Judge, Fatehpur, respondent No. 2, releasing a portion of the shop in favour of respondent No. 1. The dispute relates to a shop covering an area of 18' x 18' situate in Mohalla Chhoti Bazar, Chowk Road, Fatehpur City. The landlady, respondent No. 1, filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of the said shop on the allegations that the shop in question was required by her son Devendra Kumar for carrying on business. He had started the business of ready -made garments and general merchandise in a gallery of an area of 3' x 18' which was hardly sufficient for carrying on business by him. The release application was opposed by the petitioner. He stated that Devendra Kumar has sufficient accommodation in the gallery in which he is carrying on business and the need of respondent No. 1 was not bona fide.
(2.) THE Prescribed Authority appointed Sri R.C. Uttam, Amin as Commissioner for submitting his report of the position of the shop in question. He found that Devendra Kumar was carrying on business of ready -made garments in a gallery covering 3' x 18' and the area of the shop in question was 18' x 18'. The gallery was adjoining the shop in question. The prescribed Authority rejected the application of respondent No. 1 taking the view that the son of respondent No. 1 had started business in 1979 and respondent No. 1 had not made any effort after 1979 for getting the shop in question released and, therefore, the accommodation with the son of respondent No. 1, who is carrying on business in a gallery shall be treated as sufficient. Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal against the said order. The appeal was partly allowed vide order dated 20 -9 -1993 releasing 5' x 18' towards south of the shop in question in favour of respondent No. 1, He held that the accommodation with the son of respondent No. 1 is insufficient and if out of 18' x 18' x space of 5' x 18' adjoining the gallery where the son of respondent No. 1 was carrying on business is released, the need of her son would suffice. The petitioner has filed the writ petition against the said order. I have heard Sri B.N. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel of the respondent.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner assailed the finding of respondent No. 2 that the need of the son of respondent No. 1 was bona fide. The prescribed Authority has also recorded a finding that Devendra Kumar son of respondent No. 1 was carrying on business in a gallery of an area of 3' x 18' adjoining the shop in dispute. He rejected that application simply on the ground that the son had started his business in 1979 and respondent No. 1 had not taken any steps for ejectment of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 taking into consideration the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that the space available for doing business by the son of respondent No. 1 was hardly sufficient. It was a gallery and if an area of 5' x 18' out of the total area of the shop in possession of the petitioner be released, that would suffice his need. It is a finding of fact and there is no illegality in such a finding.;