SITA RAM Vs. IVTH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE MUZAFFARNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against an order of the appellate authority dated 11-9-1997 allow ing the appeal and dismissing the applica tion filed by the petitioner under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The petitioner filed application under Section 21 (1) (a) of UP Act on 13th June, 1980, with the allegation that he has two sons, namely, Ashok Kumar and Pawan Kumar. Ashok Kumar requires the disputed shop for carrying his business. The tenant-respondent has denied that landlord's need was bona fide. . The prescribed authority on consideration of material evidence on record came to the conclusion that the need for the disputed shop to establish Ashok Kumar's business was bona fide and he would suffer greater hardship in case his application was rejected. Respondent filed an appeal. . kainst the sard order. The appellate authority has allowed the appeal by the impugned order dated 11- 9-1987 and rejected the application filed by the petitioner.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) IN view of the above, the writ peti tion is allowed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to decide afresh the appeal afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the above observations. It will be open to the concerned parties to lead further evidence in the case, taking into account all the subsequent developments 'which might have taken place during the last 20 years. The appeal shall be decided within 3 months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.