Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD A.K. Goyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. In spite of service of notice, respondent No. 2 has not put in appearance.
(2.) BY means of this petition, challenge has been made to the order dated 14.5.1993 passed by VII Additional District Judge, Bareilly allowing the appeal filed by tenant -respondent and dismissing the petitioner's application filed under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for short the 'Act'). The facts in brief are that the petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate, is the owner of the shop in dispute which is under the tenancy of respondent No. 2. The petitioner moved an application under section 21(1)(a) of the Act for release of the shop in question on the ground that the same was required for establishing his chamber. It was also alleged that besides the shop in dispute the tenant had two other shops in his possession just in front of the shop in question out of which one shop was vacated by him after accepting some money from the landlord of the said shop which went to show that he had no requirement.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 8.4.1991 allowed the release application filed by the petitioner. After considering the entire evidence brought on record, the Prescribed Authority recorded a specific finding that the need of the landlord -petitioner was bona fide. The Prescribed Authority further recorded a finding that the tenant -respondent had not made any effort to search any suitable alternate accommodation. Aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority, the respondent -tenant filed an appeal. The Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 14.5.1993 allowed the appeal and dismissed the release application.;