Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—This is tenant’s petition questioning the validity of order dated 14.3.2008 passed by Prescribed Authority, in P.A. Case No. 29 of 2004, Sri Sri Manish Chhatwal v. Virendra Kumar Khanna, allowing release application of the landlord under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and the order of its affirmance dated 6.9.2008 passed in appeal No. 69 of 2008 preferred under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972.

2. Brief background of the case, as disclosed in the writ petition, is that petitioner is tenant of shop, which forms part of building No. 184, Abulane, Meerut on a monthly rent of Rs. 450/-. Said shop was let out to petitioner by Santosh Kumar Chhatwal on the basis of lease deed dated 7.11.1969 entered into between Santosh Kumar Chhatwal and Virendra Kumar Khanna. Said premises in question was subsequently sold to Manish Chhatwal by registered sale deed dated 28.8.1999. Said Manish Kumar Chhatwal moved release application for eviction of the aforementioned premises, mentioning therein that the said premises was bonafidely required by him as he wanted to settle himself independently by establishing his own business in the shop in question. After the said release application had been filed on 11.3.2004, written statement was filed on behalf of the tenant, clearly and categorically taking the stand that need of the landlord was not at all bona fide and genuine one, and landlord was man of resources and artificially need had been set up, and further inter se parties there was lease deed, and therein it was clearly and categorically mentioned that tenant could be evicted only when he was in arrears of rent for three months. Therefore, in this background, release application was liable to be dismissed. Tenant-petitioner got his written statement amended on 23.4.2006 by adding expression to the effect that the sale deed dated 28.9.2008 was a sham and bogus transaction. The petitioner in support of his case filed his own affidavit and the copy of lease deed. The tenant also produced before the Prescribed Authority documentary evidence to show and substantiate huge transaction of money in respect of landlord, who claimed himself to be unemployed. The petitioner filed affidavit on 4.4.2006, denying his relation with another company M/s. Hindustan Compressors Limited and further denied the alleged status of Managing Director of M/s. Lalco India Private Limited. It was also re-asserted that entire business of manufacturing and sale of sports goods was in the name of the mother of the respondent-landlord, but it was actually his business. The Prescribed Authority, on the basis of evidence adduced, allowed the release application. Against the said order appeal had been filed, which too has been dismissed. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

3. Sri K.N. Tripathi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri K.K. Arora, Advocate, contended with vehemence that—

(i) in view of condition No. 7 as contained in the lease deed dated 7.11.1969, executed by previous owner Santram Chhatwal in favour of Manish Chhatwal, the petitioner-tenant could not have been evicted from the tenanted portion except in terms and conditions of the aforesaid lease deed, which provided for eviction on default in payment of rent for four months, and as there was no default in payment of rent for four months, the application moved under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 on the ground of bona fide need was not maintainable;

(ii) the facts of the case clearly and categorically demonstrated that the premises in question was not at all bonafidely required and the nature of the proceedings were motivated and lacked bona fide need, as landlord was man of resources and the claim set up by him was sham and ingenuine, as such finding of fact returned on the question of bona fide need is unsustainable;

(iii) on the comparative hardship front also perverse finding has been recorded based on the suggestion in respect of a