Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.12.1993 passed by respondent No. 1 allowing the release application filed by respondents No. 2 and 3. The facts in brief are that respondents No. 2 and 3 purchased Building No: 107/112, Jawahar Nagar, Kanpur by registered sale deed dated 15.9.1975. In this building there are three shops. One shop is in possession of the petitioner. The landlord -respondents sent a notice on 6th May, 1985 that they require the shop in question to set up their son, Atul Kumar, in business. This notice is alleged to have been served on 9.5.1985. They filed application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 24.12.1985 on the ground that they want to set up their son, Atul Kumar, in business. Respondent No. 2 was due to retire on 30.6.1993 and his wife, respondent No. 3, in January, 1993.
(2.) THE petitioner filed objection to the said application and it was stated that the son of respondents No. 2 and 3 did not require the accommodation in question. It was further stated that there is another vacant shop available to the petitioner and if his son requires the said shop, the same can be occupied by him. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application on 18.8.1990. Respondents No. 2 and 3 filed appeal against the said order before the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal the son of respondents No. 2 and 3, Atul Kumar, died on 13.12.1991. The landlord -respondents filed an application on 9.1.1992 for amendment of their application and it was stated that the main intention of the landlord was to engage their son in business and thereafter to join him after retirement. This amendment application was allowed. The parties were permitted to lead evidence in support of their contentions. The landlords filed affidavits and the petitioners also filed affidavit denying the need of landlord -respondents. On 16.12.1993 respondent No. 1 allowed the appeal and it was found that the need of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to set up themselves in business was bona fide. It was further found that the petitioner already had another shop in Nayaganj. Further he has constructed a market in House No. 124/8, D Block, Govind Nagar, Kanpur where 13 shops are still vacant. The petitioner shall not suffer greater hardship. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that respondents No. 2 and 3 had filed application for release on the allegation that they want to set up their son in business. The said son having died during the pendency of the appeal, the need, on which the application for amendment filed by respondents should not have been allowed by the Appellate Authority as it was based on new grounds. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had filed an application for amendment that their son was to set up in business and they had intention to join him after their retirement. Respondent No. 3 admittedly retired from service on 30.6.1993 and his wife retired from service on 21.1.1993. They had intention to join the son after their retirement. After his death respondents No. 2 himself wants to carry on business. The petitioner had contested the application before the Prescribed Authority that even assuming that the need of respondent No. 2 and 3 was bona fide still they have alternative accommodation. This plea was again raised before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority allowed the application on 27.4.1992 and thereafter permitted the parties to lead evidence. The petitioner never challenged this order by filing writ petition but thereafter adduced evidence to show that the version of respondents that the need of shop in question for carrying on business was incorrect.;