Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri A.K. Sachan, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.K. Tyagi appearing for the contesting respondent. The respondent -landlord filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the 'Act') before the Prescribed Authority for release of the accommodation in dispute which is a non -residential building wherein the petitioners were running a small restaurant selling tea and other edibles. The case set up by respondent -landlord was that the shop was requited for setting his sons in computer business. The proceedings were contested by the petitioners -tenants. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application filed by the respondent -landlord. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal. The appellate authority also confirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, tenants -petitioners have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.
(2.) ONE of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the authorities below have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them by not considering the question whether the need of the landlord -respondent can be satisfied by release of the part of the accommodation in dispute under the tenancy of the petitioners. It has been further urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the business is being run in the disputed accommodation for last 50 years and in case, the part of the accommodation is released in favour of respondent -landlord, the need of both the parties would be satisfied. Though this ground was not taken up initially in the writ petition but has been brought on record by means of a supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. In the interest of justice, the supplementary affidavit has been taken on record and the petitioner has been permitted to raise this plea.
(3.) IN reply, it has been contended on behalf of respondent that the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise this point in the writ petition for the first time when the same was not raised before the Courts below. It has also been urged that the shape and size of the accommodation in dispute is not such that part release would serve the purpose of the respondent -landlord.;