Irshad Ali, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Amit Singh Bhadauria, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) The petitioners before this Court are tenants in the shop in dispute on the rent of Rs.25/- since 1976. The respondent/ landlord moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 on the bona fide requirement to run the business as the sons have no any other source of livelihood. The application was moved in the year 1984. The prescribed authority after hearing the parties and on perusal of material on record, passed an order on 25.7.2006 in case No.15 of 1984 (Hari Prasad Gupta v. Nanhu Dhobi), allowed the application with the direction to vacate the shop and hand over the possession within two months.The petitioners/tenants, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the prescribed authority, filed an appeal No.36 of 2006 before the District Judge, Balrampur which has also been dismissed affirming the order passed by the prescribed authority on 25.7.2006.
(3.) Assailing both the orders, the petitioners have preferred this petition before this Court and his submission is that he has placed three submissions (i) Civil Judge, Junior Division, Balrampur was not authorized to act as prescribed authority by the District Judge; (ii) as per the provisions contained under Rule 16 (2), the question of comparative hardship has not been considered in consonance with the provisions referred hereinabove; and (iii) the landlord has three other shops wherein he can run his business for his sons, thus the comparative hardship was in favour of the petitioners/tenants.;