Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.7.1991, allowing the application filed by the landlord respondents 3 and 4 under Section 21(I)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order dated 15.9.1995, parsed by the appellate authority affirming the said order partly. The facts in brief are that respondents 3 and 4 filed an application for releasing the disputed accommodation situate at 1st and 2nd floor of house No. CK 23/15, Rani Kuan, Varanasi, on the allegation that Smt. Sita Devi mother of the applicant -landlord was owner of the house in dispute. After her death they have become owners of the property.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 was in service at Delhi. His services came to an end and he wants to establish his own business in the premises in question. The petitioner contested the application and denied that respondent No. 3 intends to establish himself in business at Varanasi. The Prescribed Authority recorded a finding that respondent No. 3 is not working at Delhi. His services have come to an end and he wants to start business in the premises in question. The application for release was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 6.7.1991. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order Respondent No. 1 has partly allowed the appeal and released the second floor portion of the disputed premises by its order dated 15.9.1995. The petitioner has challenged this order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the findings recorded by respondent No. 1. It is contended that respondent No. 3 has no experience of silk business and his contention that he will establish silk business in the premises in question cannot be believed. The appellate authority has considered this aspect of the case. The version of respondent No. 3 that silk business is his ancestral business. He was in service at cloth shop in Delhi. He has gained experience of silk etc. There was nothing to disbelieve his version. This finding is based on evidence on record and does not require any interference. It has been found that he is unemployed and intends to start silk business in the premises in question. The appellate authority has, however, released only second floor portion of the premises in dispute and the first floor portion has been permitted to be retained by the petitioner.
(3.) THE submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the second floor portion has been given to the respondent and while going to the second floor they will be using the stair case which is through the first floor and it will affect the privacy of the petitioner. There is no material on the record to establish this fact Secondly if that be so, the petitioner would have requested the appellate authority that he may be permitted to carry on the business on the second floor. The petitioner has been permitted to retain the shop at the first floor.;