- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Petitioner, by means of the instant petition, prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of cer- tiorari quashing the order dated 7. 1. 1987, passed by Vth Addl. Distt. Judge, Fateh-pur, acting as appellate authority, under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for short the Act.
(2.) INSTANT petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. The dispute relates to the shop No. 89 situated at Mahadeo Tola, Fatehpur. Release was sought by the petitioner on the ground that the shop in dispute was needed for settling his son Krishna Kumar in the business of bicycles, as he was seek in studies and he had no interest in perusing the same. It was alleged that the opposite party had another shop situated at the Chowk Bazar and used to carry on business in the same, the shop in dispute was given by him to his nephew Sanjiv Kumar alias Piyush Kumar, who was not the member of his family. It was further pleaded that the tenant (respondent no. 2) will not suffer any hardship in the event the release ap plication is allowed. Application was contested by respondent No. 2, Har Swaroop Rastogi, who pleaded that the need of the petitioner was neither genuine nor bonafide. Petitioner had another shop and used to carry on the j wellery business in the same, that the said respondent has been carrying the business in the shop in dispute since 1970. It was denied that Sanjiv Kumar alias Piyush Kumar was a tenant in the shop in dispute, it was also denied that the shop situated in Chowk Bazar was in his possession. Respondent No. 2, further asserted that in case he is ejected from the shop in dispute, he shall suffer compara tively more hardship than the petitioner, in the event of rejection of his application. The Prescribed Authority after perusing the evidence on record was pleased to hold that the need of the petitioner for the shop in dispute for set tling his son in the business was genuine and bonafide. It was also held that respon dent No. 2 was in occupation of the shop situated in Chowk Bazar and used to carry on the business of general merchants and shoes and further that the shop in dispute was in possession of Sanjiv Kumar alias Piyush Kumar therefore, he will not suffer any hardship, if he is ejected from the shop in dispute. Having recorded the aforesaid findings, the prescribed Authority allowed the release application in favour of the petitioner vide its judgment and order dated 3-4-84.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and order passed by Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before respondent No. 1. The appellate authority allowed the said appeal by its judgment and order dated 7-1-87 petitioner, there after, approached this court and filed the present petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the case.;