RAKESH TIWARI, J. - (1.) Notice on respondent No. 3-tenant has been deemed to be sufficient by order of this Court dated 4-9- 2006. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 4 is formal party but has filed a counter- affidavit.
(2.) HEARD Counsel for the petitioner, Counsel for the respondent No. 4 and the Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Also perused record. This is landlord's petition challenging the validity and correctness of judgment dated 17-11-2004 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) passed by Additional Sessions Judge/fast Track Court No. 3, Muzzaffarnagar and judgment and order dated 31-3-2003 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kairana District Muzaffarnagar. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that late Kuldeep Singh, father of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 was landlord of the disputed accommodation. He together with his family members was residing in the upper storey of the building. There are four shops on the ground floor. Mohd. Salif alias Mando son of Sri Kalamuddin-respondent No. 3 is tenant of one of the shops situated just beside the stairs of the residence of the petitioners.
(3.) THE case of the petitioners is that the vacant place lying behind the shop in possession of respondent No. 3 is in dispute. Sri Satnam Singh is degree holder of computer education and he is in need to set up computer education centre for his livelihood, as such, release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of he U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kairana. The application was registered as S. C. C. Case No. 19 of 1998. The case was contested by the tenant-respondent No. 3 denying the plaint allegations on the ground that the petitioner- landlords are not in bona-fide need of the disputed accommodation.;