Poonam Srivastava, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The instant writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.8.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar, in Appeal No. 49 of 200 under section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") rejecting the petitioner's application under section 21(1)(a) of the Act.
(2.) THE petitioners are landlords of the disputed shops. Late Chhangu Lal predecessor in interest of the petitioners was original owner of the shops in question, which was let out to late Mewa Lal predecessor in interest (tenants) of the shop in question at the rate of Rs. 50/ - per month. Release application under section 21(1)(a) of the Act was preferred before the Prescribed Authority for setting up his two sons in the independent business on 5.2.1981. The application was supported by an affidavit of the landlord himself. It was specifically stated that the shops in question were bonafidely required for his own use and the two sons, who have now become major, they are to be set up in some business and also he had no vacant shop in his possession and, therefore, the necessity arose to institute the proceedings for release. The landlords stated in paragraph No. 4 of the release application that the tenant/respondents are also constructing new buildings having a number of shops where they can shift their own business. This fact was not disputed and subsequently the Prescribed Authority allowed the release application after being satisfied that the tenants have constructed their own shop. Reliance was placed on the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner along with map. Besides, it was also found that the sons of original tenant Mewa Lal had divided the shops in question into two parts and sublet to two different persons namely Ashok Kumar, opposite party No. 1 and Narendra Kumar, opposite party No. 3 and Triloki, opposite party No. 10. This subletting was behind the back of the landlords and in absence of any allotment order in violation of specific provisions of the Act.
(3.) THIS fact of subletting was brought on record by amending the release application. The Prescribed authority initially rejected the release application vide order dated 28.9.1984, which was set aside in appeal vide order dated 13.1.1993. The case was remanded for afresh decision and subsequently the Prescribed Authority allowed the release application directing the tenants to hand over vacant possession within thirty days. The Prescribed Authority recorded specific findings on the basis of evidence and assertions made by the landlords that sons of Mewa Lal, original tenant, had made alteration and divided the shops in two parts and sub let to the opposite party Nos. 5 to 7 without there being any allotment order, intimation of vacancy or consent of the landlords. It was further held that two sons of Chhangu Lal are without any job and they are to be engaged in some business. Witnesses have also filed their affidavits in support of contention of the landlords. While allowing the release application, the Prescribed Authority had specifically placed reliance on the statement of Ashok Kumar, respondent No. 1, where he has stated that the landlords have no vacant shop in their possession. The other shops of which they are owners, have already been let out much before the initiation of the release proceedings whereas the contesting opposite parties have got vacant possession of their own shops, which they constructed during continuation of the case. The tenant Ashok Kumar preferred an appeal under section 22 of the Act, which was allowed vide judgment dated 21.8.2003, which is impugned in the instant writ petition.;