RAVINDRA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. KRISHAN LAL KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-landlord moved an application for release of shop under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, which is in the tenancy of the petitioner being Release Application No. 81 of 1990, Annexure-3 to the petition. The need alleged by the landlord is to settle his son Gulshan Kumar in the business who is alleged to be without any employment. The application for release was rejected by the prescribed authority on 12.9.1995 by Annexure-2 to the petition. Therefore, the respondent preferred appeal under Section 22 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, which has been allowed on 25.4.2001 by judgment Annexure-1 to the petition and the shop in dispute has been released in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved by it, the present petition has been preferred.

(2.) I have heard Sri Manish Goyal. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the perusal of the application for release shows that it was pleaded by the respondent that he want to settle his son Gulshan Kumar, who want to start the business of cycle parts. It is argued that no other need has been pleaded. The trial court considered the matter in detail and found that Gulshan Kumar has not filed his own affidavit. The trial court also found the need for two other sons of the respondent, namely. Satish Kumar and Rajesh Kumar. The trial court has, however, found that there is no need of shop for Gulshan Kumar as he has not filed any affidavit.