Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS petition arises out of order dated 29.5.1990, passed by the Additional District Judge, Kannauj reversing the order of the Prescribed Authority, Kannauj dated 26.9.1989 allowing the release application filed by the petitioners. The petitioners are the owners and landlords of the shop in dispute situate in Mohalla Ajay Pal Road Pargana and Tehsil Kannauj, district Farrukhabad. The shop in dispute was given in the tenancy of Sri Ram Lal Gupta, respondent No. 2 (since deceased) by the father of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and husband of petitioner No. 3 Sri Kailash Shankar Gupta who also died on 31.7.1985. After the death of Sri Kailash Shankar Gupta, petitioner No. 1 is running on rent a small shop of electrical goods in the name and style of "Kannauj Electric Works" which is alleged to be the only source of their livelihood. It is claimed by the petitioners that the owner and landlord of the shop in which they are running their business "Kannauj Electric Works" on rent is forcing to vacate the shop, as such they have urgent and bona fide need of their shop in dispute which their father Sri Kailash Shankar Gupta had given on rent to Sri Ram Lal Gupta (since deceased). The said shop after his death is now in the possession of the heirs and legal representatives of the respondents. It was also claimed by the petitioners that petitioner No. 2 is jobless and was forced to stop his education after the death of his father as the income of the family was so less that the family could not afford the expenses of his further education. Though petitioner No. 1 being elder brother has established his own business for sustenance of the family the need of the shop for his younger brother, i.e., petitioner No. 2 is bona fide and genuine.
(3.) IT is further claimed by the petitioners that the shop in dispute always remains closed as the deceased respondent No. 2 Sri Ram Lal Gupta was not running the shop in dispute. It appears that after notice to quit dated 22.1.1987 was given by the petitioners to respondent No. 2, the petitioners filed the release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The prescribed authority allowed their application vide order dated 26.4.1989, releasing the shop in dispute in favour of the petitioners after recording a finding of fact on bona fide need and comparative hardship in their favour. It also held that during this period respondent No. 2 did not make any efforts to search alternative shop. The prescribed authority further held that the petitioners are running their business in a rented shop whereas the business of respondent No. 2 was to sell scent from door to door and for this reason the shop remains closed.;