- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE above mentioned writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 5-12-2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 7 Bulandshahar. Brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the disputed shop was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claiming that they were owners and landlords of the disputed shop by virtue of a will executed by grand father in their favour. They were carrying on business of sale and purchase of stationary and books in the shop adjacent to the disputed shop of which the petitioner is tenant. It was alleged that respondent No. 2 was going to attain majority soon, hence for settling him the disputed shop was required. The petitioner contested the release application by filing written statement alleging that the disputed shop was allotted in the name of his father Pyare Lal on 8-10-1970, as he was not made a party to the release application, the same was not maintainable and there did not exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents. The respondents were already having the shop in which they were carrying on business and they have also got a. vacant possession of a shop, which was in occupation of Vinod Kumar son of Ratan Lal Rastogi. Thus respondent No. 1 can settle respondent No. 2 in that shop and the need of respondents was not bona fide. It is stated that in case the petitioner is evicted from the shop in dispute he would suffer grave and irreparable loss.
(3.) IN support of his case, the petitioner also filed his own affidavit, and an affidavit of his father Pyare Lal as well as an affidavit of one Tejender Singh. After going through the evidence led by both the parties the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 2-11-1998 rejected the release application on two grounds i. e. firstly that there did not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and secondly that the shop in dispute was allotted in the name of father of the petitioner who was still alive, therefore, the release application was not maintainable. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 2-11-98 the landlord- respondents filed an appeal which was allowed by the appellate Court vide order dated 5-12-2004, hence this writ petition.;