Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 17th May, 1997, passed by the Prescribed Authority, Respondent No. 2, releasing the disputed shop in favour of the landlord respondent and the order dated 17.7.1996, passed by Respondent No. 1, affirming the said order in appeal. The petitioners are tenants of a room measuring 9' 4" x 13' 3" situated at Branch Fountain Chowk, near Jama Masjid, Saharanpur. They are using it as show room. The landlord -respondent No. 3 filed an application for releasing the disputed accommodation in his favour under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act, No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the allegation that he wants to start business of plastic bags for which he has got no place except the premises in dispute. The application was contested by the petitioner. It was denied that the need of respondent No. 3 was bona fide. He is carrying on business of general merchandise alongwith respondent 5 to 7 in the adjacent shop and even if he wants to start separate business of plastic bags then he can very well do in the shop measuring 3' x 13' which is with respondents 5 to 7 and they have agreed to give it. The Prescribed Authority recorded finding that respondent No. 3 has no independent business and his need to carry on plastic business is bona fide. The space of 3' x 13' as suggested by the petitioner -tenant was not suitable for carrying on any business by respondent No. 3. The application was allowed by order dated 17.5.1997. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which was dismissed on 17.7.1997.
(2.) SRI B.N. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in front of the disputed premises there is a space of 4' x 13' and that can be utilised by respondent No. 3 for starting the business of plastic bags. The Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority both have considered this contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. It has been found that it is not suitable accommodation for carrying on the business. This is a finding of fact and does not require any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The second submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is using the disputed premises as a show room for the business of sale of shoes in the name of Bata India Ltd. The shop is adjoining to the show -room. Respondent No. 1 by misreading the evidence filed on behalf of the appellant held that the petitioner is using the premises in question as store room and that has vitiated its order while comparing the hardship of the parties. The Prescribed Authority had made local inspection. There was no issue either before the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate Authority that whether it was being used as show room or store room. The petitioner has admittedly a shop adjoining to the disputed room. The mere reference in the order of the Appellate Authority that it is being used as store room is hardly relevant, when it has been found by both the authorities that the landlord is unemployed and needs the disputed accommodation.
(3.) AS regards the need of respondent No. 3 is concerned, it has been found that respondent No. 3 requires the disputed accommodation for carrying on his plastic bags business. The third submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a part of the disputed accommodation should have been released keeping in view the principle laid down in Rule 16(1)(d) of the Rules framed under the Act. This point was not specifically raised before respondent Nos. 1 or 2, it is, however, not disputed that the size of the rooms in occupation of the petitioners is 9' 4" x 13' 3'. This is only one room and hardly any partition of this room can be made. The petitioners have already a shop adjoining it where they are already carrying on business. It has been found by respondent No. 1 that respondent No. 3 is unemployed and wants to carry on business in the disputed shop. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority rightly allowed the release application filed by the landlord. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.;