- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari
(2.) -Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri M. K. Gupta for the respondents who has filed vakalatnama today. The facts giving rise to this, in brief, are that the landlord-respondent filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 seeking release of the premises in dispute asserting that he has retired from service on 31.8.2002 and he required the premises in dispute of the purpose of starting his own business of a provision Store/ Restaurant. The aforesaid application was contested by the petitioner-tenant by filing a written statement and it was asserted therein that the landlord was receiving a sufficient amount towards pension and as such he was not in need of the premises in dispute for starting any business. It was also asserted that the landlord was owner of house No. 83, Sarafa Bazar which was in his possession and the said building is situated in a prime location in the market area where he can easily start his business and further that he was already carrying on a Sarafa business in the said building. An application paper No. 65/C1 was filed by the tenant for spot inspection of premises No. 83, Sarafa Bazar in order to prove that the landlord had already been carrying on a Sarafa business in the aforesaid premises and that he has sufficient accommodation to establish a provision store.
(3.) PRESCRIBED authority allowed the release application filed by the landlord vide order dated 13.10.2006 and the appeal preferred against the same by the tenant has been dismissed by the District Judge, Jhansi on 21.4.2007. The only contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the landlord has been running his business from his residential house and, therefore, does not require the shop of the petitioner.;