K.C.Agrawal, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against a judgment of the District Judge, Jhansi dated 17-2-1977.
(2.) An application under section 21(l)(a) and (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by Maniram, respondent No. 2 or release of shop No. 12 Subhashganj, Jhansi. Respondent No. 2 alleged that he has got six sons. The eldest son of the respondent no. 2 was Dr. Dhirendra Kumar, who was doing private medical practice at Jhansi. Second son was Dayaram who has completed his M.B.B.S. The fourth son was Govindram has also done his B. E. Examination. The third son was Jai Ram who was then a student of final year of M.B.B S. The Landlord claimed that he wanted to settle second and 4th sons in life and, as such, he wanted the disputed shop which had been let out to the petitioner for occupation. The landlord also asserted that the firm M/s. Chhitarmal Narayin Das to whom the premises had been let out had closed his business and that the shop was no longer required by it. The respondent No. 2 also alleged that he wanted the shop for the expansion of his own business as well. Another ground mentioned in the application was that the shop was in a dilapidated condition and was required to be demolished.
(3.) The application was contested by the petitioners. They disputed that the need of the respondent No. 2 was bonafide. The respondent filed a list of the properties which were in possession of the respondent No. 2, for showing that the respondent No. 2 had a number of properties available to him and that the disputed shop was not required by him for the purposes disclosed in the application. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application. Against the said order, the respondent no. 2 filed an appeal. In the appeal, the learned District Judge found that the shop was in a dilapidated condition and was required to be reconstructed after demolition. The further finding given was that the premises was bonafide required by the landlord for the need of the two sons mentioned in the application. With regard to the petitioners, the finding given was that another firm in the name of M/s. Mansukhlal Durga Prasad was doing business in the premises in dispute. On this finding, the appeal was allowed and the application made by respondent no. 2 was accepted. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.;