- (1.) A. N. Varma, J. The dispute in the present writ petition pertains to a shop measuring 10' x 5' situate on the main road, Tharbarangani, Lakhimpur Kheri of which the petitioner is the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 55 and op posite parties No. 3 and 4 its landlords. Adjacent to the shop in question, two other shops exist, one occupied by Jamuna Prasad and the other by Neethu Sethi, who were also tenants at the same rate, but subsequently they vacated the same. Opposite parties No. 3 and 4 i. e. , the landlords, preferred an appli cation under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the build ing occupied by all the three tenants for establishing Mudit, son of opposite party No. 3, who had completed his studies, having passed B. Com. Examination and not intending to continue further studies. The shops were re quired for personal occupation for establishing said Mudit in ready-made gar ment business. Adjacent to the said shops, the landlords running a sweetmeat business under the name and style of 'mitaiwala'. The case of the opposite parties was that since their need in respect of the shop in question was bona fide and genuine, therefore, the same be released in their favour for establish ing their son in garment business. It was also alleged that greater hardship would occasion to the landlords in the event the application is refused in com pared to the tenants if the application is allowed.
(2.) ALL the tenants occupying the said three shops including the petitioner, contested the application for release by filing joint written statement. The case set up by the tenants was that the need of the landlords was not bona fide and genuine and it was only with an intention to evict them that an application for release had been preferred solely with an ulterior motive. It was further al leged that the landlords had ample accommodation under their occupation as such the son could be conveniently settled in business in the accommodation available with the landlords. It was also the case of the tenants that said son was not well versed in running the garment business, therefore, too it was not justifiable to allow him to occupy the building under the tenancy of the tenants after evicting them. According to the petitioner a multi-storied complex had also been built by the landlords, wherein several shops were available and the son could easily establish and carry on his business in one of the shops in the complex. It was also the case of the tenants that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable, as such, the application for release could not proceed and deserved to be thrown out at the thresh-hold. In support of their cases, the petitioner as well as opposite parties No. 3 and 4 filed affidavits. The prescribed authority vide its judgment and order dated 24. 2. 2005 allowed the application of the landlord for release of the building. It opined that the need of the landlord was genuine and bona fide and the building was required for establishing the son in garment business. On question of compara tive hardship, it held that in the event the application for release is disal lowed greater hardship will occasion to landlords in compared to the tenant in case the same was allowed. Being aggrieved against the judgment and order passed by the Pre scribed Authority the petitioner filed an appeal under section 22 of the Act, the other two tenants also filed separate appeals. During the pendency of the appeal, Jamuna Prasad as well as Neetu Sethi, the other two tenants vacated the shops under their tenancy and handed over vacant possession of the same to the landlords. The petitioner alone contested his appeal.
(3.) THE opposite party No. 1 vide its judgment and order dated 10. 4. 2008 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the findings arrived at by the Prescribed Authority. THE petitioner by means of the present petition has challenged the judgment and order passed by the appellate authority as well as by the Pre scribed Authority. I have heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate in support of the petition as well as Sri S. M. K. Choudhary, who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties No. 3 and 4, in opposition.;