Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Som Narain, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri Tarun Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent.

2. The dispute relates to a shop situated at Dal Mandi, Meerut Cant whereof the petitioners are tenants and the respondent is the landlord. The petitioner No. 2, Jugal Kishore, is proprietor of petitioner No. 1 M/s Kanhayia Mal Kasturi Lal, a proprietorship firm. He died during pendency of the present writ petition and has been substituted by his legal heirs.

3. The writ petition is directed against the Judgment and order dated 9.5.2001 (Annexure 14 to the writ petition) passed by the 13th Additional District Judge, Meerut allowing Appeal No. 29 of 1998 of respondent-landlord and setting aside Judgment and order dated 18.12.1997 passed by the Prescribed Authority.

4. The respondent-landlord filed an application, i.e., P.A. Case No. 140 of 1991 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 1972’) stating that he alongwith his father Kailash Chand and brother Sri Narain Prasad has been running a business in the name and style of M/s Kailash Chandra and Sons at Dal Mandi, Ganj Bazar, Meerut Cantt dealing in sale and purchase of edible oils etc. The landlord’s father, Sri Kailash Chand, died in February 1991 and thereafter earlier firm was dissolved. A new firm in the partnership of applicant-landlord and his brother Narain Prasad came into existence which continued business of sale of edible oils etc. in the name and style of firm ‘M/s Kailash Chand and Sons’. Subsequently, however, some differences had arisen between the two brothers and since applicant-landlord’s mother was also supporting respondent-landlord’s brother Narain Prasad, they realised that running of partnership business would not be conducive. Both brothers came to an understanding that as soon as applicant-landlord finds any other accommodation to run his own independent business, the partnership would cease. Since respondent-landlord had no other accommodation to commence his own independent business though possesses enough experience of business, i.e., dealing in oil, sugar etc. he, therefore, needs shop in question to be vacated by petitioner-tenant so that he (landlord) may commence his own independent business therein. He also alleged that tenant has another shop No. 72 Dal Mandi, Sadar, Meerut and property at 195 Police Street, Sadar, Meerut which the tenant is using as Go down though mostly the shop remains vacant and he can shift his business thereat. This application was filed in July, 1991.

5. The petitioner-tenant contested application by filing his written statement dated 14.5.1993 wherein, besides others, he said that respondent-landlord had another property at Durga Bhawan, Tilak Bazar, Sadar Meerut Cantt. whereat he is carrying on business in the name and style of ‘M/s Singhal Agencies’. Therefore, his contention that he has no other accommodation is incorrect. The tenant also disputed the story of differences between two brothers and the mother. Regarding accommodation said to be possessed by tenant, it is pleaded that shop No. 72, Dal Mandi, Sadar, Meerut was in possession of Jugal Kishore, son of the tenant, and his brother-in-law who are running a partnership business thereat. The shop is not vacant. Regarding property No. 195, Police Street Sadar, it was pleaded that the same was not in possession of petitioner-tenant but in the possession of Sri Darshan Lal, brother of petitioner-tenant.

6. The application of landlord was rejected by Prescribed Authority vide Judgment and order dated 18.12.1997 recording findings on both the aspects namely bona fide and genuity of personal need and also about comparative hardship, against him (respondent-landlord). Thereafter, matter was taken in Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1998. The appellate Court, by means of the impugned Judgment, has a