- (1.) Heard Sri Om Prakash, learned Counsel for the petitioner who is now represented by his heirs and legal representatives. Petitioner landlord applied for the release of the house in dispute for the need of his two sons Mohan Lal and Gopal. The said two sons have their own family consisting of their wives and three children each. The release application was allowed by the prescribed authority but in appeal the judgment has been set aside and the release application has been dismissed holding that the need of the petitioner is a mere desire and is not bona fide at all.
(2.) The first submission of Sri Om Prakash is that in view of Explanation-1 to section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as the respondent tenant has acquired a residential house, his objection to the release application cannot be considered.
(3.) I have gone through the judgments and orders of the Courts below. The prescribed authority has only mentioned that the respondent tenant is having 1/25 or 1/30 share in the ancestral house. There is no finding from either of the Courts that the share in the said house is available to the petitioner in a vacant state.;