S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlords respondents against them under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground of bonafide need in the form of P.A. Case No. 75 of 1981. The property in dispute is a shop. Prescribed Authority/ Judicial Magistrate 1. Allahabad by judgment and order dated 2.6.1983, dismissed the release application. Learned respondent filed appeal against the said judgment and order under Section 22 of the Act, which was numbered as R.C. Appeal No. 582 of 1983 and was allowed by II Additional District Judge, Allahabad through judgment and order dated 2.3.1984. The appellate authority set-aside the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority and allowed the release application of the landlord respondent. This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid judgment of the appellate authority.
(2.) In the release application filed by landlord respondent No. 1 to 6 the need set up was for respondent No. 1 and 3 i.e. Ram Dulare Misra (R.D. Misra in short) and Ram Chandra Misra (R.C. Misra in short). Copy of the release application is annexure 3 to the writ petition. In Para 3 of the release application, it is stated that applicant No. 1 (R.D. Misra) was totally out of employment after incurring heavy losses in contract business and was in dire need of the accommodation in tenancy occupation of the opposite parties for his personal use and occupation for opening a shop. In Para 4 of the counter affidavit, Para 3 of the affidavit filed in support of release application has been admitted subject to facts stated thereafter.
(3.) In the release application, it was also stated that applicant No. 3 (R.C. Misra) was an Advocate and required the accommodation in dispute for his chamber. Tenants also pleaded that initially a big shop in their tenancy occupation on behalf of landlords however in the year 1976 they voluntarily delivered possession of about ⅔ back portion of the same to the landlords of which they were in possession. The landlords refuted the said allegations and asserted that since start of tenancy the tenants petitioners were in possession of the same portion which they occupied at the time of filing of release application. However this fact was not denied that towards backside of the shop in dispute a commercial accommodation of about double the size of the accommodation in dispute was available to the landlords. However landlord's case was that respondent No. 2 and 4 were carrying on the business of selling Khoya (Khoya Mandi) from the said commercial accommodation and Chabutra in front thereof. The tenants themselves stated in Para 22 of counter affidavit filed before the prescribed authority, copy of which is annexure 4 to the writ petition that the front portion of the said commercial accommodation which was in possession of the landlords, was utilised by the landlords for running Khoya Mandi and about 200 persons with their thalies assembled there each day and actually a Mandi for selling Khoya was organised and besides chabutra portion of the hall which has got three doors was also allowed to be occupied by Khoya sellers on payment of rent of Rs. 1 per thali. In Para 22 of the counter affidavit, the tenant clearly admitted that the accommodation at the back side of the shop and Chabutra in front thereof was actually being used for the purpose of business of Khoya (Khoya Mandi).;