Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is tenant of the shop in dispute, has challenged the order passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which shall here-in-after referred to as 'the Act' dated 8th October, 2003, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure No. '14' to the writ petition, whereby the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-landlord and set aside the order passed by the prescribed authority under 'the Act' dated 5th February, 1999 and directed release of the shop in dispute in favour of the respondent-landlord.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner is tenant of the shop in dispute from the time of Rameshwar Prasad Agrawal, who was landlord, which is not disputed. The respondent Umesh Chandra Agrawal is the son of Rameshwar Prasad Agrawal and as per the case set up by respondent Umesh Chandra Agrawal he is landlord of the accommodation in question in which the shop in dispute is situated, by virtue of family settlement according to which the accommodation in question fell in the share of Umesh Chandra Agrawal. The landlord Umesh Chandra Agrawal filed an application under Section 21 (1)(a) of 'the Act' before the prescribed authority for the release of the shop in dispute, which is non-residential accommodation in favour of landlord Umesh Chandra Agrawal for his personal need. The need set up by the landlord Umesh Chandra that he was in private employment and ceased to be under employment during the pendency of the litigation, therefore after cessation of the employment he is carrying on small scale business of medicines from his residential accommodation and further in order to augment his income, he required the shop in dispute from where he will carry out his business. The prescribed authority vide its order dated 5th February, 1999, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure No. '6' to the writ petition, dismissed the application for release of the shop in question filed by the landlord.
(3.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the prescribed authority, the respondent-landlord preferred an appeal under Section 22 of 'the Act' before the appellate authority. The appellate authority vide its order dated 19th May, 2001 allowed the appeal filed by the landlord and directed the release of the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord within three months. The petitioner instead of vacating the accommodation in question preferred a writ petition being civil misc. writ petition no. 26863 of 2001 before this Court. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2001. This Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 19th May, 2001 passed by the appellate authority and directed the matter to go back to the appellate authority with a direction that the appellate authority shall afford an opportunity to the tenant-petitioner to file supplementary rejoinder affidavit and after filing the aforesaid affidavit, the appellate authority shall decide the matter afresh on merits in accordance with law. After remand the matter came up before the appellate authority, where the parties have exchanged their affidavits as per direction issued by this Court. The appellate authority vide its order dated 8th October, 2003, which is impugned in the present petition, allowed the appeal filed by the landlord and set aside the order passed by the prescribed authority and directed release of the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord Umesh Chandra Agrawal, thus this writ petition.;