SANGEETA CHANDRA,J. - (1.) This petition has been filed by petitioner-tenant Vineet Kumar now deceased through his legal heirs and representatives challenging the order passed by the Appellate Court dated 19.03.2018 in PA Appeal No. 9 of 2016 by District Judge, Shahjahanpur.
(2.) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that landlord had filed Release Application under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 showing his bonafide need for settlement of his son who was unemployed. The Prescribed Authority in PA Case No. 10 of 2012 came to the conclusion that the landlord had not come with clean hands praying for release of the shop in question as in pursuance of the partition that took between the landlord and his brother, the landlord was in possession of two shops and not one as alleged by him. The comparative hardship of petitioner was found greater as he had an old and ailing father to look after and two growing children. Despite effort being made by him, he could not find alternative accommodation to shift his business.
(3.) It has been further submitted that when the landlord filed appeal namely Appeal No. 09 of 2016 the Appellate Authority without setting aside the findings of fact recorded by the Prescribed Authority, concentrated only on the grounds set up by the landlord that his son was unemployed and needed to be settled in an independent business.;