Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The facts of this case, in brief, are that there were two shops No. 50/1 and 50/2 situate in Mohalla Banshipura, Surajkund, Meerut which were under the tenancy of one Khairati Lal upon whose death the tenancy devolved upon his two sons Jaspal Sharma and Surendra Kumar Sharma. However, Jaspal Sharma (respondent No. 2) also died and his heirs and legal representatives, respondent Nos. 2/1 to 2/7 and respondent No. 3 are occupying the shops on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/ - per month. The dispute relates to the aforesaid shops which were once belonged to late Lala Baijnath who expired after executing a registered Will under which admittedly the aforesaid shops devolved upon the petitioner. In 1994 a release application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) was filed by late Lala Baijnath. However, on account of his death the said release application was materially amended. The petitioner in the said release application contended that: - - (a) The petitioner is owner and landlord of the shops in dispute which are under the tenancy of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Their business of sports goods from the shops is lying closed as respondent No. 2 is doing job work on contract basis and respondent No. 3 has joined service with M/s. Hans Sports. (b) It was also contended that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have acquired a shop in Mohalla Shankar Kuti, Suraj Kund, Meerut quite close to the shops in dispute and across the road and as such they do not require shops in dispute. (c) On the other hand, the petitioner has retired as a Technician from Indian Air Force and is drawing a meager pension of Rs. 2,600/ - per month which is hardly sufficient to cater his basic needs. Therefore, to augment his income the shops are required for establishing himself in the business of sports material in which his younger son Amin shall assist him. The need of the petitioner is as such genuine and bona fide.
(2.) IN support of release application, the petitioner filed affidavit of late Lala Baijnath, his own affidavit (Paper No. 22 -Ga) along with a copy of the Will executed by late Lala Baijnath, affidavit of Vinod Kumar (Paper No. 23 -Ga), one of the witnesses to the Will, affidavits of the petitioner (Paper No. 31 Ga and 53 Ga) etc, along with a copy of the Pass Book of his pension account. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 contested the release application by filing their written statement.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority after considering the entire material on record allowed the release application vide order dated 19.6.1997 holding that the need of the petitioner for the shops is genuine and bona fide.;