SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. - (1.) This petition has been filed by petitioner who is tenant for quashing the order passed by Prescribed Authority/Judge, Small Causes Court, Bareilly dated 06.12.2018 in PA Case No. 23 of 2004 (Raj Bahadur v. Kishan Lal) and order dated 16.01.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Court No. 2 (Anti-Corruption Act), Bareilly in Rent Control Appeal No. 02 of 2011 (Kishan Lal v. Raj Bahadur).
(2.) The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner had taken the shop in dispute situated in property No. 138, Kwaja Kutub, Kuncha Sitaram, Bareilly on a monthly rent of Rs. 225/- in 1982. The petitioner is running his business of selling Pan and kites in the said small shop. The landlord, respondent No. 1, since deceased filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 seeking release of the shop in dispute on the ground that when the said shop was given on rent in 1982 the children of the landlord were small. Later on, his three sons have all grown up. The eldest son Kapil Rastogi was married and settled. The second son Amit Rastogi was educated but remained unemployed and third son Monu Rastogi was studying. Accordingly the need was set up for Amit Rastogi.
(3.) It was alleged in the release application that the shop in question was required for settling him in general merchandise business. The petitioner-tenant filed written statement bringing on record the fact that Amit was not unemployed but was running business of selling artificial jewellery. The landlord although did not dispute the said contention. He filed a pathology report of Amit Rastogi to show that the doctor had advised him not to pursue his business of artificial jewellery as the number of cells of lymphocytes in his blood have increased many-fold and eosinophils also went abnormal and there was hidden infection symptoms which might cause Asthama at later stage if he continues with his current business. It is contended that the pathology reports were unaccompanied by any doctor's prescription and could not have been relied upon by the learned Trial Court.;