- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 27-5-1982 passed by Appellate Authority allowing the appeal and releasing the dis puted shop in favour of the landlady-respondent No. 3.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a tenant of one shop situate on ground floor of Premises No. 59/1 Mirpur Cantt. Kanpur. It was owned by Munna Lai. He died leaving behind him his widow Ram Nandani-respondent No. 3, his son Om Prakash- respondent No. 4 and two daughters Smt. Usha and Km. Asha. His widow was working as Aya in a local school. She filed an application under Section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) for release of the disputed shop against the petitioner on the ground that she requires the disputed shop for carrying on business of general merchandise. Her daughter Smt. Usha is widow and living with her and she will also join her. Her daughter Km. Asha is unmarried. Her son Om Prakash does not want to join the petition as such he has been impleaded as opposite party. This application was contested by the petitioner. It was denied that she re quires the disputed shop for carrying on any general merchandise business. Il was further stated that the application was not maintainable, as other co-landlords had not joined in the application. The Prescribed Authority rejected the applica tion on 26-3-1981 on the finding that respondent No. 3 was already employed and does not require the shop in question to carry on any business. Respondent No. 3 filed appeal against the said judgment. The Appellate Authority has allowed the ap peal on 27-5-1982. This order has been challenged by the petitioner. I have heard Sri S. M. A. Kazmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. N. Gupta learned counsel for the respondent.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application filed by respondent No. 3 was not maintainable, as there were co-landlords. It has been found that the petitioner was paying rent to Smt. Ram Nandani, therefore, she was entitled to file the application. She had joined her son as proforma party as he did not want to join her. In the facts and circumstances the application filed by respondent No. 3 was maintainable. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the need of respondent No. 3 is not bona fide. She was employed as an Aya in a local school. This establishes that she is a working lady and after the death of her husband she stated that she requires the accommoda tion for carrying on business. The Appel late Authority examining the matter found that the version was correct. The finding that she requires the disputed shop for carrying on business does not suffer from any legal infirmiiy.;