- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for quashing of THE order dated 30,3. 1996 passed by THE 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Rent Appeal No. 214 of 1993, (Gyan Kumar Singh v. Sayeed Khan. Briefly stated THE facts of THE case are that THE petitioner is THE tenant of one shop @ Rs. 175 per month in premises No. 25/26, Mohalla Purani Taksal (Kabirchaura), Varanasi City of which respondent No. 3/landlord who moved an application dated 12-11-1990 under Section 21 (1) (a) of THE U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 before THE Prescribed Authority (respondent No. 2) for its release. The application was registered as P. A. Case No. 6 of 1990. The main ground taken by respondent No. 3 in his application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act 13 of 1972 was that he required the shop in dispute for establishing his two sons, Sanjay Kumar Singh and Sujeet Kumar Singh in automobile engineering business who were un-employed. The petitioner filed objection denying inter alia that the need of the landlord was not bona fide and genuine as two shops in the same premises which had fallen vacant were given by the landlord to Singh brothers and one Sri Devasheesh after taking handsome premium from them. It was also averred in the objection that the income of the landlord is approximately Rs. 17,000/- per month, as such his financial condition was very sound and he could establish his sons elsewhere.
(3.) ON the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship it was pleaded in the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner that the elder son of the respondent-landlord was employed as an Engineer with Samarth Automobile Service. It was also pointed out before the Prescribed Authority that the younger son of the landlord was getting education and therefore, there was no question of any urgent and pressing need for any accommodation for running of any business. The case of the petitioner-tenant also was that he has no other accommodation for the purpose of running his business except the shop in dispute which was the only source of income and in case he is evicted therefrom he would be left with no option except to face starvation.;