M.P. Saxena, J. - (1.) This is a tenant's petition arising out of proceedings under section 21 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972.
(2.) Shop No. 353 and 354 are contiguous to each others and are situate in Sabun Godam, Meerut. The petitioners are the tenants of shop No. 353 and the opposite party No. 2 was a tenant in shop No. 354. The latter purchased both the shop in 1969 and as such the petitioners became tenants of respondent No. 2. The petitioners are carrying on vegetable business' in shop No. 353 while respondent No. 2 is carrying on the business of selling and repairing cycles in shop No. 354. At first the respondent No. 2 filed an application under section 3 of the U.P. Act III of 1947 for permission to file a suit for ejectment against the tenants but it was rejected on 30th October, 1973. On 12.11.1973 after the commencement of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 the landlord filed another application under section 21(1)(a) for eviction of the tenants on the ground of bona fide need. He gave out that he had a shed in front of his shop No. 354 which was removed by the municipal board and there became dearth of space for his mechanics and customers. It was also alleged that the tenants were not sitting on the disputed shop but one Sukhram was sitting on it and as such they had no need for it. According to him, the tenants, main source of livelihood was agriculture.
(3.) The application was contested by the tenants, inter-alia, on the grounds that the application under section 21 after rejection of the application under section 3 of the U.P. Act No. 1II of 1947 was not maintainable, that the landlord had no bona fide need for the shop and that they would be put to irrepairable loss if they were evicted from the disputed shop. They also denied that they were carrying on agriculture or had allowed Sukhram or anyone else to use the disputed shop. The Prescribed Authority rejected the releases application. The landlord filed an appeal under section 22 of the Act and the learned First Additional District Judge, Meerut, allowed it by holding that the landlord has bona fide need for the same and that he will suffer greater hardship if the release application was not allowed.;