Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.10.1996 passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the release application filed by the landlord-respondents under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 31.5.1997 dismissing the appeal against the said order.
(2.) Jagdish Singh was the landlord of the premises in question. He filed an application for release of the shop in question on the ground that he wants to settle his grandson. Alok Kumar, in business of general merchandise and for that purpose he bona fide requires the shop in question. During the pendency of the proceedings, Jagdish Singh, the landlord died and his heirs were substituted. He died leaving behind him four sons, namely. Ramesh Chand. Subhash Chand. Nek Chand and Manak Chand. An application for amendment to the application for release was filed and the applicants set up the need for Akshay Kumar son of Nek Chand and it was stated that Alok Kumar, another son of Nek Chand is carrying on business which was being carried on by late Jagdish Singh.
(3.) The release application was contested by the petitioners. It was stated that there was a partition in the family and the shop in question had fallen in the share of Manak Chand and the release application cannot be allowed for the need of his nephew. It was further asserted that Akshay Kumar was assisting his father in the business and he is not unemployed and in any case various other shops were vacant in which he can carry on his business. The Prescribed Authority, considering all the aspects, found that the need of Akshay Kumar was bona fide and genuine and released the shop in favour of respondents on 8.10.1996. It came to the conclusion that the petitioners failed to prove that there was a partition in the family. Akshay Kumar was not assisting his father and there was no other vacant accommodation in which Akshay Kumar can carry on business. The petitioner filed an appeal and the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal by the Impugned order dated 31.5.1997.;