Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. U.P.U.B. Case No. 5/93 was filed by the petitioner landlord setting up need to his sons and praying for eviction of tenant on the ground that he has acquired his own shop and the landlord genuinely and bonafide requires the shop under the tenancy of the respondent.
(2.) THE respondent tenant contested the release application alleging that petitioners have several accommodation with them. Petitioner No. 1 filed her affidavit in the month of August 1995 stating therein that she has 8 sons all of whom are married having their families. Four of her sons are engaged in independent business and the remaining four sons including petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are not having any independent business. The Prescribed Authority, Aligarh, on 26.8.2000 rejected the U.P.U.B. Case No. 5/93.
(3.) IT is submitted that the prescribed authority did not consider the fact that alleged accommodation was not vacant and is in occupation of the husband and 4 other sons of petitioner No. 1 who are engaged in their independent business, the Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Aligarh wrongly dismissed U.P.U.B. Appeal No. 15 of 2000.;