M.P.Singh - (1.) THE petitioner is a tenant of shop no. 91 situate in Sarai Karori, Khurja, District Bulandshahr. He has been in occupation of the shop since 1947 and has been carrying on the profession of Vaidyagi.
(2.) IN December, 1982 a partition took place between the respondent no. 3 Om Prakash and his father Gopi Lal. As a result of that partition, the house in dispute fell to the share of respondent no. 3. This partition was recognised by means of a decree passed on 26th September, 1983 and signed on 10-10-1983 in suit no. 107/1983. After the decree was passed in favour of respondent no. 3, he filed an application under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of the shop on the ground that he had no other shop and he wants to set up his own independent business in the said shop. It was also asserted that his need was bonafide. The said application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the partition decree was a collusive one and has been purposely obtained in order to file the present application. According to the petitioner the release application was not bonafide.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority by means of the order dated 27-4-1984 allowed the release application holding that the compromise between the respondent no. 3 and his father was not collusive and the need of the landlord was bonafide and genuine. On the question of comperative hardship, a finding was recorded that in case the shop was not released in favour of the landlord, greater hardship will be caused to him. Aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority after considering the evidence, particularly the affidavit of Gopi Lal and the affidavit of the petitioner, recorded its own independent finding that the partition between the respondent no. 3 and his father was not a collusive one and found it to be genuine. On the question of bonafide need the appellate authority affirmed the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority that the landlord was living separately from his father in another tenanted house. He had no shop where he could start his own independent business. On the basis of these findings the appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 27-11-1984 against which the present writ petition has been filed.;