A.B.SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) THE facts and the questions raised in both these writ petitions being common, then can be and are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Shri Nalin Kumar Sharma and for the respondent No. 2 Shri P.K. Jain appearing in both petitions have been heard. Respondent in both the petitions, Roop Chandra, the landlord, filed two separate applications under section 21(i)(a) of Act 13 of 1972 praying for release of one shop each, in the tenancy of Mukesh Kumar, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 30952 of 1994, and Anand Swarup Singhal, the petitioner in the Writ Petition No. 30963 of 1994, on the ground of his bonafide requirement to settle his one son Ram Gopal in the general merchandise business in the shop occupied by Mukesh Kumar and another son Sanjay in the shop occupied by Anand Swarup Singhal. The application was opposed by the petitioners on the ground that Ram Gopal and Sanjay are not sons of Roop Chandra rather are sons of his concubine Roshani from her earlier husband. Ram Gopal and Sanjay are running their joint general merchandise shop in village Sherpur. The shops in questions are not bonafide required by the landlord and that if the release is allowed, they will be put to a great hardship.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority held that Smt. Roshani is legally wedded wife of Roop Chandra, Ram Gopal and Sanjay who are sons of the first husband of Roshani are not male lineal descendants of Roop Chandra within the meaning of definition of family in Section 3(g) of Act 13 of 1972 and release to fulfil their need cannot be sought by the landlord. He accordingly rejected the application.;