Sunita Agarwal, J. - (1.) Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
(2.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court in a release filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The release application has been filed for the need of Anil Sharma, younger son of the applicant landlord. The release was contested on the ground that Anil Sharma is working as a Supervisor in Sainik Petrol Pump. Further there are five shops in the premises in question, out of which one shop was given on rent to one Subhash Chand during the pendency of the release. The another shop which is occupied by one Mahendra is lying closed.
(3.) The Court below has recorded that there are five shops in the premises in question out of which one is in occupation of the petitioners who had inherited it from their father Hem Shankar Yadav. The petitioner no. 2 Jagbir Singh Yadav is not in possession of the shop in question as he is engaged in a private job. So far as the petitioner no. 2 Jagbir Singh Yadav is concerned, he has opened his lawyer's office in the shop in question. Out of the remaining four shops, in one shop, the landlords son Kanti is doing his business. Other three shops are in tenancy of different tenants. The petitioner has not been able to establish that one shop was given on rent to Shri Subhash Chand during the pendency of the release. The burden was upon the tenant who has failed to discharge it. Challenging this finding learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a categorical submission that Mahendra who was doing business of Sweet maker had opened his shop at another place and now he is keeping the shop in question closed.;