Vivek Kumar Birla, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused record.
(2.) By means of the present writ petition the tenant is challenging the order dated 14.11.2014 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Saharanpur in P.A. Case No. 34 of 2010, Irshad Ali and others v. Dr. Brajpal Singh whereby the application of the landlord filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the application) was allowed. The aforesaid order was affirmed by the Additional District Judg , Court No. 3, Saharanpur in Rent Control Appeal No. 2 of 2015 by judgment and order dated 3.2.2016.
(3.) The application was filed by the landlord for release of the shop no. 1505/1, Mohalla Afganan Nakud, district Saharanpur with the allegation that he is the landlord of the shop in dispute and the petitioner is the tenant. He had filed application on the ground that the shop in dispute is required for his son Farhat Ali Khan who is a trained electrician and since he could not get any job, therefor he has been working privately and is conducting his business from the residence itself as no shop is available for this purpose. It was further alleged that the tenant, who is a permanent resident of district Muzaffarnagar is a doctor by profession and he has two shops in district Muzaffarnagar wherefrom he is running a clinic and is also running a medical store. Apart from this he is also running one clinic at Kalsia Road Muzaffarabad district Saharanpur. It was categorically alleged that the tenant is keeping the shop in dispute locked and he is not using the sam . Thus bona fide need was alleged by the landlord. The tenant replied to the same and he admitted that he is the tenant in the shop.;