Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed by the tenants challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 22.2.1984 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Munsif, West, Ballia (respondent No. 2) in P.A. Case No. 29 of 1983 and also the order dated 25.11.1985 passed by the District Judge, Ballia (respondent No. 1) in Rent Control Appeal No. 4 of 1984.

3. The facts of the case in a nut-shell are that Sri Jagdeo Shah, deceased respondent No. 4, was the owner of the shop in dispute situate in Qasba Rasra in District Ballia. He had carried on cloth business in the shop for some time, but due to his old age he transferred the shop in the name of his wife Smt. Dhanraji Devi, deceased respondent No. 3. Sri Jagdeo Shah was doing cloth business at Kolkata also where he decided to go as his business in the shop in dispute was not giving returns up to his expectations.

4. The landlords let out the shop in dispute to the petitioners for a period of one year. However, due to riots in Kolkata Sri Jagdeo Shah had to wind up his business at Kolkata and returned to Ballia. The respondent-landlady Smt. Dhanraji Devi thereafter obtained licence for hosiery business in the name and style of M/s N.N. Hosiery Works and an application was moved by Smt. Dhanraji Devi and Sri Jagdeo Shah before the Prescribed Authority, Ballia on 1.8.1983 under Section 21 (1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of the shop in dispute on the ground of their bona-fide need due to closure of their business at Kolkata. The need of the landlords/contesting respondents is asserted in paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the release application dated 1.8.1983 as under :

“(3) Yah ki sayal No. 2 ka us samay rojgaar Calcutta me bhee tha isliye makool intazam dukan kapare kee na hone ke karan fayada na ho saka. Dukan kiraya tarafsaniyan ko uski istaduwa par saal bhar ke liye diya aur usee mei wah kiraya par rahne lagaa baad mei bhee jabarjasti kiraya par rahta hai kyonki ham sayala ke nabaligaan larki hai our sayal No. 2 buzurg aadmi hai aur sayal No. 1 aurat hai.

(5) Yah ki dukan mei dukan apni jeevika par challane ke liye tatha bachchi kee parwarish karne ke liye jo banayee gayee thee ham sayalan kee sadbhaawik awashyak awashyakta hai. Ham sayalan ke pariwar mei vyapar ke liye koi doosra sthaan nahi hai jisme dukan karke apni rojee roti chalaya jaa sake.

(6) Yah ki sayala No. 1 ne ganjee baniyan kee rojgaar ke liye licence bhee hasil kar liya hai aur sthan dukan ka nahin hone ke karan vyapar nahin chal paa raha hai tatha gujar basar karna asambhawa ho gaya hai."

5. According to the landlords the petitioner-tenants are big businessmen. They were not doing any business in the shop in dispute which was kept locked by them. They do not require the shop in dispute also for the reason that they had another shop at Rasra where also they were running their business.

6. The petitioner-tenants contested the release application and filed written statement denying the averments of bona fide need of the landlords. It was also stated by the petitioners therein that they were paying rent of the shop in dispute regularly and doing their business in the shop in dispute since many years and asserted that the respondent-landlords had other properties also, as such the need of the respondent-landlords could not be said to be bona fide particularly for the reason that the respondent-landlords had cloth business at Kolkata and they were not in need of the shop.

7. On the basis of the pleadings and considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the Prescribed Authority/Munsif-West, Ballia vide impugned judgment and order dated 22.2.1984 allowed the release application filed by the respondent-landlords holding that the need of the respondent-landlords is bona fide and therefore they were entitled to possession of the shop in dispute