S.R.Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri B.P. Agarwal appearing for the petitioner and Sri S.N. Singh, appearing for the respondents. The petition has its genesis in the proceedings of release under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972. The application for release was moved by the petitioner on the ground that the shop in question was bona fide required by him in order to settle his married son Ashok Kumar in the general merchandise business. It was alleged that the petitioner had got a large sized family and the income that he eked out from betel shop was inadequate even to meet the bare needs of the family. The release application was resisted by the respondent tenant inter -alia on the ground that he had been carrying on the shop business in the shop in question since long and that he himself had a large size family to support out of the income yielded from the said business. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application vide judgment and order dated 14.9.1981. The landlord's appeal having been dismissed by 4th Addl. District Judge Fatehpur vide judgment and order dated 22.7.1982, the instant petition has been filed for the relief of quashing the orders aforestated.
(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the Prescribed Authority did not assign any categorical finding on the question of bona fide need of landlord and that the appellate authority has held against the petitioner on the fallacy that if the need of the landlord was bona fide, he ought to have first opened the shop elsewhere and thereafter applied for release of the shop in question to shift his merchandise business. This approach of the appellate authority detracts from merit in that it was not necessary for the landlord to have first taken plunge into the business of general merchandise in a rented shop elsewhere and then applied for release. Such a course of action was not at all a sine qua non for establishing bona fide need of the landlord. The conclusion reached by the appellate authority that it was mere desire on the part of the landlord to open merchandise business in the shop in question, being result of misconceived approach of the appellate authority, is vitiated. The appellate court has also not reckoned with the affidavit filed by Badruzama wherein it was averred that he had been tenant of the petitioner for the last 11 years. However, by way of suppl. affidavit brought on record, it has been stated that Badruzama has since vacated the other shop wherein the second son of the landlord namely Vikas has been settled in business. That apart, the petitioner has filed a suppl. affidavit bringing on record certain additional facts germane to the question as to whether the petitioners need can be characterised as bona fide. In my opinion, in view of changed circumstances, the matter commends itself to be reconsidered at the appellate stage. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is partly allowed. The appellate judgment dated 22.7.1982 is hereby quashed. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh after opportunity to the parties to bring on record such additional material as they may be relevant to the controversy in the case. Without unnecessary side -winds, the appeal shall be disposed of expeditiously if possible, within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.;