Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-tenant challenges order dated 4th May, 1987, passed by the Appellate Authority, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'5' to the writ petition, whereby the appeal filed by the landlord-contesting respondent against the order passed by the prescribed authority was allowed by which the application filed by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, was rejected by the prescribed authority.
(2.) In short, the facts of the present case are that the contesting respondent-landlord, who died during the pendency of this writ petition, filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. In short the 'Act', to the effect that the respondent No. 2 is the landlord and petitioner is the tenant of the accommodation in question, which is a shop. It is asserted that the aforesaid shop may be released in favour of the landlord, as the landlord bonafide requires the same for starting business of Parchoon for which he has sufficient financial resources. It is further asserted that the landlord, who retired from the service of Air Force in the year 1972, stayed at Delhi and in the year 1978 he decided that because of the age, it might not be possible for him to adhered the strict working norm in the service at Delhi, therefore, the landlord must start his Parchoon business in the shop in question and for that purposes, the release application was filed that shop in question be released in favour of the landlord, as the need of the landlord is bonafide. As far as the comparative hardship is concerned, it is asserted by the landlord that since he has no source of income and it is difficult for him to meet his living in meager pension that he gets from the Air Force from where he retired, therefore, the need of the landlord is comparatively more pressing than the need of the tenant-petitioner. The petitioner-tenant contested the aforesaid application inter alia on the ground that the landlord himself has come out with the case that because of the age he is not in position to follow strict duty hours of the service itself demonstrates that the landlord is physically not in a position to run the business of Parchoon, as asserted by him. It is further stated by the petitioner-tenant that further the landlord is in the employment in private firm at Delhi, where he lives with his son, who is employed at Delhi. On this contention, it has been alleged by the petitioner-tenant that the need of the landlord cannot be said to be bonafide and on the comparative hardship, it is stated by the tenant that he is carrying on business in the shop in question and if he is to vacate the shop, his business will be ruined, thus the tilt of the comparative hardship is in favour of the tenant. Lastly, it is asserted by the the tenant that the accommodation in question i.e. house No. 440 is a shop, which is vacant and is in possession of the landlord from where he can start his proposed business of Parchoon and in the alternative it is asserted that in case the tenant is evicted from the shop in question, he is willing and ready to shift his business in shop No. 440, referred to above.
(3.) The prescribed authority vide its order dated 7th June, 1982 dismissed the application filed by the landlord, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'4' to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the prescribed authority, the landlord filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act, which as stated above, has been allowed by the appellate Court, which is impugned in the present writ petition.;