Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri J.J. Munir, learned Counsel for the petitioner. List has been revised. None appears on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner who is landlord has filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the accommodation in question which consists of one room, one verandah and sehan on the first floor of the premises in question and was in the tenancy of the respondent The need set up by the petitioner was that he requires the said portion for starring business by his son. It was also the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid accommodation was given in the tenancy of the respondent for the purpose of residence and the respondent has changed the user from residential to commercial and has started tailoring business. It was also stated that the respondent has another shop No. 7/183 where he is doing his tailoring business. The aforesaid averments were denied by the respondent. The respondent tenant also denied the bona fide need of the landlord stating that he had another accommodation in his possession in the city itself where he can settle his son. It was stated that even other members of the family of the petitioner landlord had other accommodation in their possession. The Court issued a commission which prepared a map regarding the extent of the accommodation in possession of the petitioner. Against the said report and map no objection was filed by the petitioner. In an affidavit the petitioner contended that the report was ex -parte report and it has given incorrect report.
(3.) THE prescribed authority while considering the case of the petitioner has recorded that the bona fide need was not genuine since he has sufficient accommodation in his possession to settle his son. The prescribed authority found that shop No. 7/183 was not belonging to the tenant. It also recorded that the accommodation in question was being used for business purpose and the same is not fit for residential purpose.;