S. D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings for release under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Reg. of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE property in dispute is a shop, situate in Aligarh. Petitioner Suresh Chand Gupta is the tenant of the said shop. Dharam Narain and Smt. Trilok Chand, respondent nos. 3 and 4, are the landlords. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 filed an application under section 21 of the Act for release of the shop in dispute on the ground that the respondent no. 3, Dharam Narain, was unemployed and he wanted to carry on business in the shop in question. It has been alleged by him that he had taken a licence for selling the fertilizers and, as such, he would start the business and sell the fertilizers in the shop in question. This application under Section 21 of the Act was contested by the petitioner tenant on various grounds and it was alleged that the need of the respondent no. 3 was not genuine at all. It was further stated that Smt. Krishna Devi, the mother of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 had purchased a big building by three different sale-deeds in three different names. It was also stated that in the same building, a shop was lying vacant and, as such, there was available with respondent nos. 3 and 4 a shop and, as such, the need of respondent no. 3 was not genuine and bona fide at all.
(3.) THE prescribed authority, after considering the evidence on the record, by an order dated 8th October, 1982, allowed the release application holding that the need of respondent nos. 3 and 4 was bona fide and genuine and that greater hardship will be caused to respondent nos. 3 and 4 in the case the release application was not allowed. Aggrieved by the decision dated 8th October, 1982, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act. THE appeal came up for hearing before the 6th Additional District Judge, Aligarh. THE appeal was dismissed by his judgment dated 19th May, 1983, confirming the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority. THE petitioner has now challenged the decisions dated 8th October, 1982 and 19th May 1983 by means of the present petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.;