- (1.) Heard Sri Kuldeep Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) This writ petition is directed against the order passed on a release application filed under Section 21(1) A of U.P. Act 13 of 1972, setting up the need of respondent no. 3 Shantanu Rastogi for his lawyer's chamber. The release application was filed on 25.05.1999, it was contested by the petitioner-tenant on the ground that initially he was tenant of the open land and after occupying the land on tenancy, he had constructed a building over it out of his own expenditure. The respondent-landlord were not owners of the building and in view of Section 29 A of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the petitioner is protected. He cannot be evicted from the building in question.
(3.) It was further stated that respondent no. 3 was a junior Advocate and there are three other landed property in the name of family in which he can open his chamber to satisfy his need. The Prescribed Authority has held that the receipts produced by the tenant were not sufficient to conclude that the land was taken on rent and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable. However, on the bonafide need, it was held that as there were several properties belonging to the family in District Meerut which were commercial and residential and hence the need of the landlord was not bonafide. He could have settled himself in any other accommodation for the need set up in the release application. The need was a mere desire and neither bonafide nor genuine.;