Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner-tenant has been heard on merits with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at the admission stage itself.
(2.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitionertenant challenges the order dated 24th November, 2000, passed by the prescribed authority and the order dated 20th July, 2004, passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-'3' and '4', respectively, to the writ petition.
(3.) The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that admittedly the petitioner is the tenant of the accommodation in question and the respondent No. 3 is the landlord. The respondent-landlord filed an application before the prescribed authority under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, (In short 'the Act'), for release of the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord on the ground that the accommodation in question is required for the personal requirement of the landlord and its family, particularly his son to whom the landlord wants to set up in his life. It is further asserted in the release application that the accommodation in question is a shop, which is under the tenancy of the tenant-petitioner. The petitionertenant denied the allegations made in the release application and stated that it is incorrect to say that the landlord either himself or his son would carry on any business from the shop in question after release of the shop in question. In fact the landlord, his father and brothers are member of joint Hindu family and they are engaged in the business of ornaments (Sarrafa) and money lending and this business is being carried on in the family of the landlord at Kabrai, district Banda for fairly long time past. The income of the landlord and its family is quite sufficient and they are living comfortably. The landlord is purchasing properties and the allegation that from the shop in question the landlord will start new business of clothes, is wholly incorrect. It is only a camouflage to evict the tenant-petitioner. It is also asserted by the tenant that the accommodation in question is a residential accommodation and is not suitable for any business in which the tenant is living with his family and also in part of the accommodation the tenant is carrying on the business of selling lathi, danda etc., the accommodation in question was used and let out mainly for the residential purposes.;