Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.8.1998 passed by the Prescribed Authority releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of the landlord -respondents under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) and the order of the appellate authority dated 4.11.1999 affirming the said order in appeal. Briefly stated, the facts are that the landlord -respondents filed an application for release of the shop in question against the petitioner under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act on the allegations that the petitioner is a tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 150/ -. The applicants required the shop for carrying on business. The applicant Nos. 1 and 4 are carrying on business in a shop taken by them from the Municipal Board. The applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are unemployed. They required the shop for carrying on cloth business. The petitioner contested the application. It was denied that the applicants are owners of the property in dispute. The applicants do not require the disputed shop and their need is not bona fide. It was further stated that they have other shop where they can carry on business.
(2.) THE Prescribed Authority has recorded a finding that the applicants are landlords and their need is bona fide. The release application was allowed and the appeal was dismissed. These orders have been challenged in the present writ petition. I have heard Sri G.N. Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri U.N. Khare, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents made a statement that he does not propose to file any counter -affidavit and will argue the petition on the basis of the material placed in the writ petition.;