Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD Counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents even in the revised list.
(2.) PETITION is the owner of "Jaiswal Katra" i.e. a group of 11 shops in the campus of a building situated in Tahthri Gali (Peda Gali) Tappa Deoria, Pargana S.M. in the District Deoria. Shop No. 2 in dispute area 12 ft. x 5 ft. is under the tenancy of Kapil Deo Prasad respondent No. 2 since 1975. It is one of the front shops in the Katra in which respondent No. 2 is doing business of 'Sarrafa' and gold of silver jewellery. The seriatim shops in the Katra have been shown in Appendix -I to this judgment, which is copy of the map submitted by the Commissioner. In the same Katra there is another shop No. 5 of the petitioner -landlord of 11 ft. x 5 ft. dimension as that of the shop in dispute, which he offered to the tenant on exchange for shop No. 2 as the landlord wanted to settle his son Sanjay Kumar in business of ready -made garments in the shop under the tenancy of the respondent. When the tenant respondent No. 2 refused the offer of exchange of shop No. 2 under his tenancy with shop No. 5 offered by the petitioner, the petitioner -landlord filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority, Deoria for release of the shop in dispute under the tenancy of the respondent. The application of the landlord for release of the shop was registered as P.A. Case No. 46 of 1990. Shop No. 2 is in possession of the petitioner where he does his business of Sarafa i.e. of dealing in gold and silver jewellery whereas the landlord has offered him shop No. 5 of almost the same dimensions which is situate at about 20 ft. from the shop in the same Katra where there are 'Sarafa' shops of other tenants. According to the landlord shop No. 2 having frontage on the main road is good for establishing his son in the business of ready -made garments, hence his need is genuine and bona fide.
(3.) WRITTEN statement was filed by the tenant -respondent No. 2 denying the averments made in paragraph 10 of his written statement. He again refused the offer of the petitioner of exchange of the shop inter alia, that the son of the landlord for whom shop is sought by him in exchange is not interested in business and even if it be so, the landlord can establish him in any other vacant shop available with him.;