S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition which arises out of release proceedings initiated by original landlord Sri Akhilanand (since deceased and survived by Respondents 1 to 8^ against tenant petitioner under Section 21 b\C.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 4 of 1989, Prescribed Authority 14 .S.C.C., Bareilly through judgment and order dated 3.4.1999 dismissed the release application. Landlord/respondents filed an appeal against the said order being Rent Control Appeal No. 22 of 1999, Additional District Judge, Bareilly through judgment and order dated 25.4.2004 allowed the appeal and released the property in dispute in favour of landlord, hence this writ petition by the tenant. The property in dispute is a shop.
(2.) In the release application it was pleaded that landlord had five sons. All of the whom were minors at the time when shop was lot out to the petitioner, that only one of the sons of landlord i.e. Sanjay Kumar was doing Iron business (during pendency of the case. Sanjay Kumar converted his business and started the business of selling sugar (Cheeni and Bura), that the shop in dispute was required for setting Sudhir Kumar one of the sons of landlord in the business of retail and wholesale of Pulses (Dal and Arhat), that Sanjay Kumar occupied one shop and one godown. Landlord had another godown which was being used for the business of sugar and one shop belonging to landlord was in tenancy occupation of Manohar Lal. It was further pleaded by landlord that tenant had three more vacant properties available to him. It was also pleaded that the market where the shop in dispute was situate was quite suitable for the business proposed to be set up therein.
(3.) After the death of respondent landlord Akhilanand it was asserted that shop in dispute was required by Sudhir Kumar and Shyam Maheshwari Respondents 2 and 4 both sons of late Akhilanand. Release application was got amended several times. After the death of respondent landlord his heirs got themselves substituted and filed affidavits giving details of their needs and properties. A copy of the map sowing the properties of different landlords Respondents 1 to 8 is Annexure 1 to this writ petition at Page 17 of the paper book. The property situate towards south. In the said map shown by letters, C, D, F, E exclusively belongs to respondent No. 1 mother of Respondents 2 to 8. Rest of the property towards north shown by letters A, B, D, C jointly belongs to all the respondents. Two portions belonging to respondent No. 1 alone are shown by numbers VIII and IX in the map. Portion IX is stated to be in tenancy occupation of Sanjay Maheshwari, respondent No. 3 and portion VIII. In tenancy occupation of M/s Om Prakash and Akhilanand, the original landlords. In the northern part of the map is the property jointly owned by all the landlord respondents. In the said map shop in dispute is shown with the figure V. Shop shown b figure II is in tenancy of another tenant Manohar Lal Bhatia adjoining to that shop towards east is the portion which is shown by figure I and accordingly to the landlords that portion is used by them as car garage. Shops shown by figures IV, VI and VII are shown to be in occupation of firm Om Prakash Akhilanand and shop shown by figure ill is shown to be in occupation of Sanjay Maheshwari.;