Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) RAJ Kumar Mehra and Krishna Kumar Mehra are the landlords of a shop situate in Govindpuri, Modi Nagar in which respondent No. 3 Dr. Krishan Dutta is tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/ -. An application for release under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by landlord on the allegation that applicant No. 1 Raj Kumar Mehra, is aged bout 28 -30 years who has obtained education up to graduation level and he wants to open a shop of general merchandise in the disputed shop. Further allegation was that his another brother Krishna Kumar Mehra, the application No. 2, is also studying. After completing his studies, he will also join the aforesaid general merchandise business. It was also stated that landlord has no other shop in Modi Nagar. With regard to the need of respondent -tenant, it was stated that besides the disputed shop, the tenant has got one shop at Mohalla Govindpuri which consists of one hall, two shops, one baithak, two rooms etc. Respondent -tenant has also got a third shop opposite to the roadways bus stand, Nagar Palika, Gandhi Market. The said release application was contested by the respondent No. 3, the tenant, on the ground that landlords have got vast track of agricultural land and they are earning their livelihood by agriculture operation and their need is neither bona fide nor genuine. The fact that tenant has got one shop opposite to the roadways bus stand at Nagar Palika, Gandhi Market was admitted and not denied. So far as accommodation at Govindpur is concerned, the tenant came out with a case that said accommodation is residential one.
(2.) THE parties have filed evidence in support of their respective cases. The said release application was rejected by the prescribed authority by the order dated 31st of March, 1992 on the short ground that landlord has got vast agricultural land, even if the agricultural land recorded in the name of Raj Kumar Mehra and Krishna Kumar Mehra in revenue record is not sufficient, the fact remains that their father has got vast agricultural land and as such they are earning handsome income from agriculture. The said finding has been confirmed by Appellate Court in Rent Control Appeal No. 99 of 1972 by impugned order dated 31st July, 1997. Challenging aforesaid two orders, present writ petition is at the instance of landlords.
(3.) HEARD Shri Santosh Kumar, learned Counsel for petitioner. None appeared on behalf of contesting respondent No. 3. This Court by order dated 4th of November, 1999 held the service sufficient on respondent No. 3 in view of explanation under Chapter VIII, Rule 10 of Rules of the Court and directed the office to proceed. None appeared in spite of service on behalf of respondent No. 2.;