J.C. Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard petitioner's Counsel Sri R.N. Bhalla and Sri Vinod Sinha, Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 7.
(2.) This is landlord's petition. The dispute relates to a shop which is admittedly in the tenancy of respondents No. 3 to 7. The petitioner after his retirement in the year 1979 made an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of the said shop on the ground that after retirement from service, the petitioner required the shop in question for increasing his income by establishing himself in the business of 'Kabari' and it was further alleged that the petitioner has no other shop wherein he could set up the said business. It was also pointed out that the tenant Bheem Saran, the predecessor-in-tenant of respondent Nos. 3 to 7 owned and was in possession of three shops which he got through will. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application of the landlord. However, on an appeal filed by the tenant, the order of the Prescribed Authority has been reversed by the impugned order.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the landlord contended before this Court that the Lower Appellate Authority has reversed the findings of fact recorded by the Prescribed Authority on untenable grounds inasmuch as the Lower Appellate Authority held that the petitioner was in possession of one big room in his house which he could use as shop though the said room was part of his residential house and the landlord could not be compelled to convert the said portion of the residential house to a commercial purpose. It may be stated that as per the tenant's case that room was in the shape of a shop and not a portion of residential house. It was further the case of the tenant that he only got one fourth undivided share in three shops bequeathed through will. The finding of the Appellate Court is found to be perfectly valid.;