MOHAMMED ISHAQ Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) YATINDN Singh, J. One Smt. Shamshul Jehan mother of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed an application for release of shop in question on the ground that it is required for her son Rizwan Ahamad (respondent No. 3) under Section 21 (1) (a) Of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act ). She died during the pendency of the proceeding. Thereafter respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who are her heirs were impleaded. Subsequently the application filed by her was allowed by the prescribed authority on 8-9- 1981. Thereafter, the petitioner's ap peal was dismissed on 16th February 1982, hence the present writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Sri S. P. Mehrotra, counsel for the petitioner. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. Sri S. P. Mehrotra challenged the finding recorded by the Court below so far as bona fide needs of landlord are con cerned. According to him, the Courts below have not considered the evidence on record which goes to show that there was no need to bona fide requirement.