- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 15-5-1987 passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the release application filed by landlord-Respondent No. 3 under Section21 (l) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the order dated 28- 4-1995 passed by the Appellate Authority affirming said order in the appeal.
(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that landlord-Respondent No. 3 owns house in dispute which is double-storeyed building in Upper Bazar, Pauri. He is residing on the first floor which consists of three rooms. THE petitioner is tenant on the ground floor. Respondent No. 3 filed ap plication for release of portion of ground floor. He is an advocate and at the time of filing application he was working as Dis trict Government Counsel (Civil ). His family consists of 9 members. He requires the accommodation for his chamber. THE petitioner is running a watch business in the premises in the name of 'garhwal Watch Company'. He has constructed a building in Lower Bazar, Pauri and he was having shops on the ground floor of this premises. The petitioner contested the ap plication and filed objection on the ground that he did not require the premises at all. He has sufficient accommodation in his possession. The Prescribed Authority, on con sideration of evidence on record, allowed the release application vide order dated 15-5-1987. The petitioner filed appeal and the appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 25-4-1995.
(3.) I have heard Shri Rajesh Tandon learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding regard ing bona fide need of the landlord- respon dent. Both the Courts below have concur rently recorded finding that family of land lord consists of 9 members and his two sons are married. The landlord is an advocate and his two sons have also become advo cates as stated in the counter-affidavit. Thus, the finding as regards the bona fide need, does not suffer from any illegality.;