Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 13.11.1998 whereby the application flied by the landlord respondent No. 3 against the petitioner for release of the disputed shop has been allowed and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 20.10.1999 affirming the said order in appeal.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that respondent No. 3 filed application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (in short the Act) on the allegation that he has to sons, namely. Mukesh Kumar and Atul Kumar. His son Mukesh Kumar is doing independent business. His younger son. Atul Kumar is unemployed and requires the shop to carry on independent business. The petitioner contested the said application. It was denied that Atul Kumar was unemployed and requires the disputed shop for carrying on business. The Prescribed Authority recorded a finding that the need of respondent No. 3 to set up his son in business in the shop in question is bona fide and genuine and in case the application is rejected, he would suffer a greater hardship- The application was allowed. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority has dismissed it on 20.10.1999.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No. 3 is carrying on business and his son Atul Kumar is assisting him in the business and, therefore, the need of respondent No. 3 to establish his son cannot be treated as bona fide. The facts, as found by both the authorities, are that respondent No. 3 has a shop in Mohalla Sanwaldas. He is carrying on cloth business in the said shop. His elder son Mukesh Kumar is carrying on independent business and has a medical shop. His second son, Atul Kumar, passed B.Com examination. He is unemployed but as there is no other business he is assisting his father in the business.;