Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri M.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the appellate order dated 5.10.1994 passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 191 of 1993 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent landlord was allowed and the application of the petitioner for release of the accommodation in question under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been rejected.
(2.) THE contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the view expressed by the Appellate Court is that the release of the premises in question being for the purpose of business of the firm hence it was not liable to be allowed on the ground that it was not required for any member of the family of the landlord is illegal. His contention is that the said view is perverse in as such as sub -clause (a) of section 21(1) of the Act clearly provides that the bona fide need of the landlord can be for occupation by himself or any member of his family and also for the purpose of any profession trade or calling. His contention is that in view of the specific provision in the Act, the Appellate Court could not have held to be contrary. The second contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that prescribed authority had found the need of the petitioner to be bona fide and genuine and the Appellate Court has set aside the finding only on the ground that since the accommodation was required by the firm and not by the owner or any member of his family hence the need was not bona fide is illegal. He submits that in view of the provisions of Rule 16(2), the Appellate Court has committed an illegality when it has held that although the tenant had available with him alternative suitable accommodation even then the premises in question could not be released because the landlord has an alternative accommodation. He contends that the release application was filed in the year 1991 and the respondent tenant has not made any efforts to search any alternative accommodation. The Appellate Court has not considered this vital factor and has thus committed an illegality.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent tenant has submitted that the petitioner had not disclosed the names of the partners of the firm for whose requirement the release was sought hence the application was rightly rejected in view of the provisions of Order XXX, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure. On the requirement of the landlord he submits that the landlord had available with him the space in the basement hence he could have satisfied his need therein which was for the purpose of a godown. He also states that subsequent to filing the release application, the landlord has obtained possession of other premises also hence now his need being satisfied the release application could not be allowed and was rightly rejected by the Appellate Court. He has placed reliance on a decision in the case of Chhetriya Sri Gandhi Ashram v. IInd A.D.J., 1998 (2) ARC 373 and argued that one partner alone cannot maintain the application since the need of the firm has to be considered taking into account all the partners and in case the other partners are not owners and landlords then the application is not maintainable.;