The need of the landlord-respondents for the disputed accommodation was bona fide and genuine, and the findings recorded by both the authorities below did not suffer from any manifest illegality.

Sudhir Narain, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 6-3-1990 releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of the landlord-respondents and the order of the appellate authority-respondent No. 1 dated 16-4-1993 affirming the said order in appeal.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a tenant of shop No. 13/708 Bahalkhana situate on the ground floor of the building situate in Bazar Meergani, Kabari Bazar, Saharanpur. The landlord- respondents filed application under Section 21(l)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (In short the Act) on the allegation that the disputed accommodation is required for running a clinic by Dr. Praveen Kumar son of Hem Chandra, one of the landlords. The first and second floor of the building was got vacated by one Shyam Lal but it is in dilapidated condition and requires repairs etc. The first and second floor will be used for residential, purpose and the accommodation in question which is situate on the ground floor shall be used for clinic purpose by Dr. Praveen Kuftiar. The petitioner, who was impleaded as opposite party No. 2 in the plaint, filed objection to the said application. It was stated that Dr. Praveen Kumar does not require the accommodation in question for opening his clinic on the disputed premises. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application on 6-3-1990 on the finding that the disputed accommodation is required for Praveen Kumar Mittal for opening his clinic. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order. The appeal was dismissed on 16-4-1993. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against these orders. I have heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Sri Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently urged that the material evidence on the record indicates that Dr. Praveen Kumar Mittal does not require the disputed accommodation. In this respect he has submitted three points. Firstly, it is urged that Dr. Praveen Kumar Mittal, for whom the need of clinic has been set up, has already his clinic at Mohalla Purani Mandi. This aspect has been considered by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. The application for release was filed on 6-9-1982 on the allegation that Praveen Kumar has passed M.B.B.S. and he has completed his Internship and he want to start his private practice at Saharanpur. At the time of filing the application he had just passed M.B.B.S. examination. As there was no available accommodation for him for his medical practice, he took on rent an accommodation situated at Purani Mandi, Pilkhantala. The mere fact that he had to take on rent an accommodation as the accommodation owned by the landlords was not available does not indicate that his need stands satisfied. Dr. Praveen Kumar Mittal is entitled to have his own accommodation where he can suitably carry on his medical practice. The further case of the landlord is that he will reside on the first and second floors of the building in question and on the ground floor of the disputed accommodation he will have his clinic. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the application filed under Section 21 of the Act itself does not mention this fact. In Paragraph 4 of the application it was stated as under:

"the Bailkhana in dispute will meet the requirement for the doctor's profession. The applicants after getting the Bailkhana in ques tion vacated will cause different alteration for it being used by Dr. Praveen Kumar and repairing of the roof of the property in question will also be done as the upper storey will be used for residential purposes and for making it complete accommodation the kitchen, latrine and bathroom will be constructed in the upper storey. Thus, the total property cannot be used without getting the property vacated from the O.Ps. Phool Chand, grand