- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 25-9-1997 releasing the disputed shop in favour of the landlady/respondent No. 3 and the order of the appellate authority dated 21-1-1999 affirming the said order in appeal.
(2.) THE landlady-Respondent No. 3 filed application under Section 21 (1 ) (a) of LI. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Let ting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) on the allegation that she has purchased the shop in question for starting business by her husband who was working as a Munim in a Firm Gyani Ram Suresh Chandra but on account of an acci dent his leg was fractured. He wanted to do his business of Dunlop and Foam matresses. THE tenant-petitioner has got a plot where he can shift the molasses pits and can shift the business on that place. The petitioner contested the ap plication that the need of he landlady was not bona fide and in case the application is allowed, the tenant would suffer a greater hardship. It was also contended that the notice as required under the first proviso to Section21 (l) (a) of the Act was not given. The Prescribed Authority recorded a finding that the notice was duly served as required under the first proviso to Section 21 (1 ) (a) of the Act. The need of the landlady to establish her husband in business of Dun-lop and Foam Matrcsses is bona fide. The tenant can shift his business to some other place. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the appeal has been dismissed by the appellate authority on 21 -1 -1999.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner assailed the findings recorded by both the authorities. The first submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the notice sent by Respondent No. 3 as contemplated under the first proviso to Section 21 (1 ) (a) of the Act was defective as it gave one month time to vacate the premises. The notice also slates that six months notice was given to vacate the ac commodation. The Prescribed Authority rightly held that sufficient notice was given to the petitioner before filing the applica tion under Section 21 (1 ) (a) of the Act. The petitioner has further assailed the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority that the notice was served upon the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner had submitted expert report which indicated that the petitioner had not received the notice alleged to have been sent by Respondent No. 3. The Prescribed Authority has considered both the reports and ground that Respondent No. 3 had sent a notice which was duly received by the petitioner. This finding does not suffer from any manifest illegality. The appellate authority has affirmed his findings.;