GHANSHYAM DAS ARORA Vs. ROOP KISHORE CHANDAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the tenant challenging the orders passed by the prescribed authority as well as appellate authority whereby both the authorities have allowed the application filed by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of the accommodation in question in favour the landlord.

(2.) THE respondent-landlord filed application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on the ground that the son of the landlord has grown up and has passed by his M. Com examination. He wants to start his own business in the shop in dispute. THErefore, to establish his son the landlord bona fide requires the shop in question and the need of the landlord is more pressing as compared to that of the tenant inasmuch as the tenants are carrying on business of brick kiln. It was, therefore, prayed for that the shop in question be released in favour of the landlord. It is also alleged by the landlord that when the landlord requested the tenant to vacate the premises they demanded Pagri (premium) for vacating the same.

(3.) AGGRIEVED thereby the tenant preferred an appeal as contemplated under Section 22 of the Act. The appellate authority affirmed the findings recorded by the prescribed authority. Thus this writ petition challenging the order passed by the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority.