- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 7-12-1989 passed by Respondent No. 1 allowing the appeal and releasing the dis puted accommodation in favour of landlord-Respondent No. 3.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Saeed Ahmad was tenant of the disputed accommodation consisting of two rooms measuring 12' x 9' and 15' x 10' of which respondent No. 2 is the landlord. Respon dent No. 2 filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) against the tenant on the allegation that the dis puted accommodation was let out to Saeed Ahmad when he was minor but now he has become major and wants to do inde pendent business of fitter and turner and he has got experience of the same. The tenant is running coaching classes where about 20 children come to get tuition but the tenant has got his own house in Mohalla Ali Agangran where he can run his coaching school on the ground floor after raising construction on the first floor of his residence. The application was con tested by late Saeed Ahmad. He alleged that he is teaching about 40 children in the day and 40 children in the evening in the accommodation in dispute which is his source of livelihood. It was further stated that the landlord has godown bearing number 11/2575/2 and there is a big Plot No. 11/2661/1 situated opposite to the ac commodation in dispute in which the joint business is being carried on by the landlord and others. The Prescribed Authority found that the need of the landlord was bona fide but rejected the application while considering the comparative hardship. Respondent No. 2 filed appeal against this order. The appellate authority allowed the appeal vide impugned order dated 7-12-1989 holding that the need of Respondent No. 2 is bona fide and genuine and he would suffer a greater hardship in case the application is rejected. I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents. The main thrust of the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the landlord has a godown 11/2575/2, a shop 11/2575, and a plot 11/2661/1. It is suggested that if Respon dent No. 2 wanted to do independent busi ness of Fitter and Turner he can do so in such accommodations. The Prescribed Authority has found that in 11/2575 and 11/2575/2 joint business of wood work was being carried on by the father of Respon dent No. 2 and his brother and on that basis he held that it was open to Respondent No. 2 to carry on independent business but while comparing the hardship he made observation that he can do such business in these two properties.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the appeal, the appellate authority made a local in spection and prepared a report Paper No. 65-C. The petitioner has not filed copy of the said report. The appellate authority observed in his order that these accom modations were not vacant. In both the places goods of wood work were found. In between these two premises the space was being utilised for residential purposes. The brother of Respondent No. 2 was mar ried in the year 1989 and he along with his wife was residing therein. The version of the respondent was that he had no concern with premises No. 11/2575/2, 11/2575/2 and 11/2661/1. As regards property No. 11/2661/1, it was clearly denied by Respondent No. 2 that he is owner of the property. It is not neces sary to decide the question as to whether Respondent No. 2 is the owner of property No. 11/2575. The Courts below have recorded a finding that the business in the said premises was being carried on by the father of Respondent No. 2 and his brother. Respondent No. 2 wanted to carry on the business independently. There is no vacant portion in Premises No. 11/2575/2. Respondent No. 2 was not the owner of property No. 11/2661/1 which is an open piece of land. The Prescribed Authority as well as the appel late authority both recorded finding that the need of Respondent No. 2 to carry on independent business of Fitter and Turner was bona fide. This finding is not vitiated.;