- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 20-7-1995 passed by respondent No. 1 al lowing the appeal and releasing the dis puted shop in favour of the landlord-respondent No. 2.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that respon dent No. 2 is landlord of the shop in ques tion of which the petitioner is tenant. THE property in dispute was purchased on 19-12-1983 in the name of respondent No. 2 when he was minor. He became major in the year 1987. On 5-8-1991 a notice was given to the petitioner to vacate the dis puted shop as it was needed for respondent No. 2 to carry on the business. THE petitioner did not vacate the shop in ques tion. On 16-2-1992 respondent No. 2 filed application under Section 21 (l) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (In short the Act) with the allegation that the disputed shop was required by respondent No. 2 for carrying on business. He was aged about 23 years and had no shop to carry on the business. It was purchased by father of respondent No. 2 in the year 1983 when he was minor with the expectation that when he will become major, he will get the shop in question to carry on the business. THE petitioner contested the application. It was stated that father of respondent No. 2 is carrying on Halwai business in another shop. THE tenant-petitioner is also carry ing on the Halwai business. THE applica tion has been filed because of business rivalry. It was further pointed out that there are other shops of the family of respondent No. 2 where the landlord-respondent No. 2 can carry on the busi ness. It was further alleged that respon dent No. 2 is, in fact, carrying on Halwai business with his father. THE prescribed authority rejected the application by its order dated 15-4-1993 on the ground that the need of respondent No. 2 is not bona fide. Respondent No. 2 filed appeal against this order. THE appellate authority respon dent No. 1 has allowed the appeal vide impugned order dated 20-7-1995 reversing the finding of the prescribed authority and holding that the need of respondent No. 2 is bona fide and genuine. On comparative hardship it was found that in case the ap plication is rejected, respondent No. 2 would suffer greater hardship. I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. K. Yog, learned counsel for the respon dent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding of the appellate authority on the question of bona fide need. It is urged that respondent No. 2 is member of joint family of which his father Chhote Lal Sharma was Karta. Some of the properties are in the name of brother of respondent No. 2 which are available to respondent No. 2 and he can carry on the business in those premises. He has referred to certain paragraphs of the af fidavits to show that there were four shops in Mohalla Ther and one shop where the business is being carried on in the name of Guru Sweets. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioner has made averments about this fact in his affidavit dated 10-1- 1993 but that was not replied by respondent No. 2 in his affidavit dated 14-9-1992. This asser tion is incorrect. Respondent No. 2 could not have controverted the facts stated in paragraph No. 10 of the affidavit dated 14-9-1992. Respondent No. 2 filed rejoinder affidavit on 3-2-1993 and another affidavit on 22-2-1993 and the suggestions and allegations as made by the petitioner were denied. It was stated that respondent No. 2 has no other shop to carry on the business. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that father of respondent No. 2 had purchased three shops in the name of other persons namely, Ravi Kant and Vijai Kant for the purpose of running the business. The al leged shops are not in the name of respon dent No. 2. The appellate authority has also considered this aspect of the matter and found that none of the shops are avail able to the petitioner for carrying on the business. Respondent No. 2 does not own any other shops. The finding recorded by the appellate authority is based on the evidence on record and does not suffer from any manifest illegality. It has been further found that in the year 1977 father of the petitioner purchased the shop for his sons including in the name of Kuldip son of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner was that he is not carrying on the business in that shop but, in fact, his brothers were carrying on the business. It has, however, been found that the business is being run in the name of Amrit Chemi cals and the petitioner is one of the co- sharers.
(3.) THE petitioner has filed a sup plementary affidavit dated 1st December, 1998 at the time of hearing of the petition. In none of the paragraphs it has been shown that respondent No. 2 has pur chased any property in his own name. He refers to other properties alleged to be in the name of other brothers of respondent No. 2. THEy were already considered by the appellate authority. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit it has been stated that father of respondent No. 2 has purchased a big property in the name of his son in Mohalla THEr. THE petitioner has not filed any copy of the sale deed, it has not been shown that the property so purchased is shop where respondent No. 2 can carry on the busi ness. Secondly, the application was filed in the year 1992 and the petitioner should have made alternative arrangement for carrying on the business and could have made sincere efforts to find out alternative accommodation. He is economically not weaker and according to his own allega tion he is carrying on the business for the last more than 25 years.;