S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) Hakeem Wasi Ahmad (since deceased and survived by legal representatives) was landlord of the accommodation in dispute which is in the form of two shops rent of which is Rs. 20/- per month. Dr. Mohd. Naqi is the tenant of the said shops. Landlord filed release application against tenant in respect of the shops in dispute on the ground of bona fide need of his sons under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 30 of 1980 before Prescribed authority, Gorakhpur.
(2.) In the release application it was stated that landlord was doing practice in Unani Medicines from a portion of his residential house and Mohd. Ahmad his eldest son had also passed course of Unani Medicines from Aligarh Muslim University and the shops in dispute were required for establishing clinic for Mohd. Ahmad. It was also pleaded that for want of accommodation Mohd. Ahmad was sitting alongwith his father in his clinic, which was being run from the residential house. It was also stated that Mohd. Akmal the second son of the landlord was doing business from a tenanted shop and his third son Matiullah was also doing five years Unani Medical course from Aligarh Muslim University. It was also stated that the other two sons were studying in school. Landlord also stated that he had nine daughters out of whom three had been married. In the release application it was specifically pleaded that the shops in dispute numbered as 1 and 2 were required for opening clinic for Mohd. Ahmad. It was also stated that tenant Dr. Mohd. Naqi was as homoeopathic Doctor and was running his clinic from the shops in dispute.
(3.) Prescribed authority through judgment and order dated 25.9.1982 allowed the release application in part. Only one shop was released and landlord was directed to file his choice of the shop. Against the judgment and order dated 25.9.1982 both the parties filed appeals. Tenant's appeal was numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 427 of 1982 and landlord's appeal was numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 434 of 1982. IVth A.D.J., Gorakhpur through judgment and order dated 20.5.1985 dismissed both the appeals. It appears that before the Prescribed authority landlord had given conditional choice for shop No. 2 hence appellate Court confirmed the order passed by the Prescribed authority releasing shop No. 2 in favour of the landlord. Against the aforesaid judgment of the appellate Court both the parties have filed these writ petitions Tenant's dispossession has been stayed by order passed in his writ petition.;