Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.11.1998 passed by respondent No. 1 allowing the appeal and releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of landlord-respondent.
(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is tenant of the disputed premises of which respondent No. 2 is landlord. Respondent No. 2 filed application under Section 21 (1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the allegations that his wife will carry on business of boutique. The petitioner contested the application. It was denied that wife of respondent No. 2 shall carry on business. It was further averred that the landlord has various other shops and if there was bona fide need, she can establish her business in those shops. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application of respondent No. 2 vide order dated 21.10.1997 Respondent No. 2 preferred appeal against the order dated 21.10.1997. Respondent No. 1 has allowed the appeal and released the disputed accommodation in favour of landlord-respondent No. 2 vide order dated 10.11.1998, which is under challenge in the instant writ application.
(3.) We have heard Shri Rajiv Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.K. Jain learned Counsel for contesting respondent.;