S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) AT the time of hearing no one appeared on behalf of contesting respondents, hence only the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner were heard.
(2.) THIS is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against tenant respondent No. 3, Hakeem Ziaul Rahman on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Landlord petitioner impleaded his real brother Jewan Lal Agarwal, respondent No. 4 as proforma opposite party in the release application, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 1990. Prescribed Authority/Munsif (West), Ballia allowed the release application through judgment and order dated 6.5.1994. Against the said judgment and order, tenant respondent No. 3 filed R. C. Appeal No. 5 of 1994, which was allowed by District Judge, Ballia on 31.7.1995 and judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority was set aside. THIS writ petition is directed against appellate court order dated 31.7.1995. Property in dispute is described in the release application as a shop. Rent is Rs. 13.75 per month. Landlord petitioner stated that in family partition dated 12.1.1987, property had fallen in his share and his brother Jewan Lal Agarwal opposite party No. 2 had no concern with the shop in dispute that tenant was doing medical practice in Unani medicine and business of selling Unani medicines from the shop in dispute since 1956 and that landlord required the shop for settling his son Rajendra in the business of selling cloths. Tenant Hakeem Ziaul Rahman pleaded that he took the accommodation in dispute, which was a house, for residential purpose and as he was Hakeem (i.e., practising in Unani medicine system), hence only in the outer verandah he prescribed the medicines for the patients and in the adjoining kothari kept medicines. It was further pleaded by the tenant that landlord was having a big shop in Sadar Bazar, which was being run by his sons.
(3.) IT may be mentioned that in the first instance, release application was allowed on 14.1.1992, however on appeal the said judgment was reversed through order dated 21.7.1992 and matter was remanded. After remand, release application was again allowed on 6.5.1994. The matter was remanded to consider two points. Firstly, whether accommodation in dispute was residential or commercial and secondly, whether landlord really intended to establish his son in cloth business or not ?;