- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant of the property in dispute which is in the nature of a shop. THE sole respondent Sri Prem Chand Goyal is the landlord of the aforesaid shop. After giving notice of termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 20 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) the landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the aforesaid Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground of bona fide need for his eldest son who is said to be unemployed. It was averred in the application that not only his son would be settled in life, the income of the family would also augment. The petitioner-tenant filed his written statement before the court below stating, inter alfa, that the eldest son of the landlord is not unemployed. It was further averred by him in the written statement that there were two vacant shops with the landlord which he may utilize to settle his eldest son.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority vide order dated 29. 7. 2005 rejected the aforesaid release application filed by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The notice of terminating the tenancy of the petitioner-tenant given by the landlord under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 20 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 has not been produced before the trial court by the respondent-landlord and in the circumstances the tenant has denied service of the aforesaid notice. The contention of the landlord that notice was given by him to the tenant terminating his tenancy, therefore, has no legs to stand.;