Sunita Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shri Nath Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE orders passed in release proceeding under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is challenged on the ground that the co -owners had objected to the release application. The release application has been filed for the need of his son by the applicant Sri Sanjay Kumar stating therein that his son is doing work of motor cycle mechanic in a rented shop. The disputed shop is a joint family property, however, a family settlement has been arrived between the co -owners and the applicant has been authorised to receive rent of the same. The petitioners contested the release application on the ground that no family settlement has been brought on record and the applicant cannot be said to be the landlord of the disputed shop. Other co -owners had not joined the applicant in the release proceeding. An issue on the dispute of the landlord tenant relationship, raised by the petitioners was framed. The Prescribed Authority recorded a finding that in the Misc. Case No. 597/70/92, the co -owners i.e. the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had admitted that the applicant was entitled to receive the rent from the petitioners and therefore, there was no dispute between the co -owners. No one had filed objection to the release application. Admittedly, the rent was tendered by the petitioner to the applicant Sri Harish Chandra Verma and hence the relationship of the landlord and the tenant was proved. On bonafide need, it has recorded that the applicant's son was carrying on the business of repairs of motor cycle in a tenanted shop near the shop in question. On the other hand, the tenant had two shops in his possession in another locality namely Govind Nagar Nand Lal Chauraha. The papers pertaining to Trade Tax of the tenant's shop were produced before the Court below to establish that a business in the said shop in the name of "Munna Samosa and Kachauri" was registered under the Trade Tax, in the proprietorship of the petitioner No. 1/1 Sri Raj Babu Gupta.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has not been able to dispute the findings on bonafide need and comparative hardship recorded by the courts below. Rather by way of a supplementary affidavit dated 30.7.2015, he submits that respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the co -owners of the disputed shop filed an application for their transposition as the applicants in the release application. They also filed their written statement showing their willingness to continue the tenancy of the petitioners and further prayed to record them as successors from their predecessors.;