A.N. Varma, J. - (1.) THE instant petition arises out of proceedings initiated by the petitioner under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for the ejectment of the opposite party No. 2. The application for release of the building was allowed by the prescribed authority vide judgment and order dated 6.10.2004, on the ground of genuine need of the petitioner. The appeal preferred by the opposite party No. 2 was allowed by the opposite party No. 1, vide judgment and order dated 20.7.2005. The controversy in the petition centres around a portion of house No. 165/1, Maulviganj, Hata Khan Faquir Mohammad, P.S. Aminabad, District Lucknow, of which the petitioner is the landlord and opposite party No. 2 being, tenant of the same i.e. in one room in the ground floor of the said house on a monthly rent of Rs. 250. The case set up by the petitioner was that his family consisted of himself, his wife and five sons. The eldest son Mohd. Iqbal was doing his business as a skin merchant and carried on his work from house No. 162/242, Chikmandi, Aminabad. The second son Ejaz was in Saudi Arabia and third son Mohd. Miraj and fifth son Mohd. Tikhlaq were running a stationary goods shop and fourth son Mohd. Ashfaq was unemployed and was yet to start his business of card board material for which the petitioner had to provide him some finds but he had no accommodation for his said son to begin the aforesaid business. It was further the case of the petitioner that opposite party No. 2 has since closed down his business and the shop under his tenancy has been locked, as he has gone to Saudi Arabia where he was working.
(2.) IN view of the fact that the shop in question was being occupied by opposite party No. 2, and no business was being carried out, therefore, the same was required by the petitioner to establish his one son in business as he had no other shop for the purpose. The need, therefore, of the landlord was bonafide, genuine and pressing. It was also the case of the petitioner that in case his application for release is rejected greater hardship would occasion to him in comparison to opposite party No. 2, in case he is allowed to retain the possession of the shop in question without any business activity being carried out in the same. To the said application under section 21(1)(a) of the Act, opposite party No. 2 filed a written statement through his wife. It was not disputed that opposite party No. 2 at the time when the application under section 21(1)(a) of the Act was preferred, was in Saudi Arabia and in the shop in question electric repair work was being carried on under the supervision of his wife with the help of other electricians. It was further pleaded that Mohd. Ashfaq for whom the shop in question was required, is already settled in business. It was further averred that apart from the shop in question there were several other shops of which the petitioner was owner and, therefore, his need for the same for establishing his son in business was not bona fide and genuine. The plea of comparative hardship was also raised which according to opposite party No. 2 titled in his favour.
(3.) THE prescribed authority vide its judgment and order dated 6.10.2004 allowed the application preferred by the petitioner under section 21(1)(a) of the Act and directed the opposite party No. 2 to vacate the shop in question within a period of one month. Being aggrieved against the said judgment and order the petitioner filed appeal under section 22 of the Act. Opposite party No. 1 vide its judgment and order dated 20.7.2005 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the prescribed authority.;