Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri P.K. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Umesh Chandra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Munawar Sultan, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Controversy involved in the present case relates to the shop situated in the premises having Municipal No. 332/20 situated at Sher-wali-Kothi, Sharrafa Bazar, Chowk Road, Lucknow under the tenancy of the petitioner.

3. Respondent No. 3 vide sale-deed dated 22.5.2000 purchased the same from the previous owner-Jagdish Chandra Agarwal. Thereafter, on 22.3.2007, moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for release. Accordingly, a PA case No. 6/2007(Smt. Usha Agarwal v. Gopal Lal Bhalla) registered before the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge(S.D.), Mohanlalganj, Lucknow.

4. In the release application it has been mentioned by respondent No. 3-landlady that she has purchased the shop in question from the then owner Sri Jagdish Chandra Agrawal by a registered sale-deed, the same be released as her three sons doing business selling of chikan, cloths from one shop not sufficient, wants to settle one son namely Sachin Agrawal in separate business. Written statement filed by tenant stating that need of landlady is not genuine, does not require any additional accommodation for the purpose of starting a new business for her son. It was also asserted that the petitioner made his best effort to get an alternative accommodation, unfortunately he has been unsuccessful. Therefore, if the eviction order passed, he will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

5. By order dated 6.8.2008 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition), respondent No. 2 allowed release application, challenged by way of appeal under Section 22 of the Act before Appellate Authority, dismissed vide order dated 10.3.2010(Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition), hence the present writ petition.

6. Sri P.K. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned orders submits that the prescribed authority as well as appellate authority not correctly followed the procedure as prescribed under the law in the instant case, neither pleadings have been perused with reference to the provisions of the CPC nor the evidence was looked, as such the impugned orders suffers from an error, apparent on record, liable to be set aside.

7. He further submits that as per the provisions as provided under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 read with Rule 16(2). The need of the respondent No. 3-landlady must be genuine and it not be a desire to get the premises in the tenancy of his client to be vacated. The said provision should strictly be followed but not done in the present case, as such the orders passed by the Courts below are contrary to law.

8. It has been also submits on behalf of the petitioner that in the instant case, the Courts below had failed to discharge their mandatory duty in applying the provisions of Section 21(1)(a) of the Act as well as Rule 16 of Rules, rather they had not taken into consideration the correct facts on record, so orders in question are against the principles of natural justice, illegal, arbitrary in nature, liable to be set aside. In support of his plea, Sri P.K. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following judgments :

9. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Kesharwani v. Dwarika Prasad and another, (2002) SC 476, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :

“(6) Regarding Rule 16, it is to be noted that sub-rules (1) and (2) lay down certain factors for consideration by the prescribed Authority which is considering the question of eviction from the premises. Rule 16(1) deals with premises in occupation for the purpose of residence and Rule 16(2) deals with premises in occupation of a tenant for the purpose of any business. Clause(d) of Rule 16(1) provides that where the tenant’s needs would be adequately met by leaving with him a part of the building under tenancy and the landlord’s needs would be se