Hon’ble Anjani Kumar, J.—This writ petition filed by the petitioner, who is tenant of the shop in dispute calls in question the order passed by the appellate authority and the order passed by the prescribed authority under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short “the Act”) dated 8.10.2003 and 8.3.2001 respectively.

2. The respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for the release of the shop in dispute in their favour for the purpose of carrying on business of Sarrafa which they are carrying on from their residence in order to augment their income. The landlords’ case is that the landlord is carrying on business of Sarrafa in a shop which is owned by one Smt. Mehroonisa under the name of Ramesh Chandra Suresh Chandra on the road because of the fact that the shop is to be vacated the landlord have shifted their business to their residence which is in a lane. As a result of shifting the business in a lane, the business of the landlord suffered a lot and in fact is reduced because the business is being carried out from a lane. The landlord therefore filed the aforesaid application. The aforesaid application of the landlord was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the landlords do not have any need and further that the landlords are carrying on their business comfortably from their residence which is no doubt situated in a lane but is in very close vicinity of the main road. It is incorrect to say that the business in any way suffered because of the situation of the place of business from where business is being carried out by the landlords. It is further contended by the tenant that the landlord has in fact entered into agreement to sale with petitioner-tenant but after the death of Suresh Chandra Soni who died on 29.6.1991 and landlord have vacated the shop owned by Smt. Mehroonisa in October, 1992.

3. The landlord have entered into an agreement to sale of the shop in dispute in favour of the petitioner-tenant dated 10.10.1992 but since one of the owners is minor petitioner therefore, the permission of the District Judge was required before execution of the sale-deed. The landlord have also filed an application dated 7.9.1993 before the District Judge. The landlord have finally accepted an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as advance and the price of the property was settled between the landlord and petitioner as Rs. 1,90,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- was separately paid to the landlord towards the expenses for obtaining the permission from the District Judge. It is the landlord who has changed his mind of selling the property, therefore, the suit was filed by the tenant being Original suit No. 386 of 1993 in the Civil Court. The Civil Court granted temporary injunction that he will not be evicted except in accordance with law. It has also been asserted by the tenant that no doubt the agreement to sale was an unregistered document but subsequently the landlord clearly demonstrated that there was an agreement to sale between them. The tenant has further asserted that firstly there is no need what to say bona fide need and the tilt of comparative hardship is also in favour of the tenant because the tenants are carrying on their business for over 100 years from the disputed shop. It is further asserted because of the business rivalry this application is filed.

4. On the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record the prescribed authority arrived at the conclusion that the allegation that there was an agreement to sale, has not been proved by the petitioner-tenant, as according to the tenant himself the agreement to sale was an unregistered document whereas under law it requires to be registered. Therefore, apart from above, from the material on record, it is also clear that the agreement to sale by the landlord in favour of the petitioner could not be established by the petitioner-tenant. On the question of bona fide need the prescribed authority has recorded a finding that the need of