Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddharth Nandan, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is the tenant’s petition challenging the order of release of the shop situated on the ground floor of the building at Miyan Bazar, South Gate, Kotwali Road, Gorakhpur owned by respondent No. 3.

3. The release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), has been filed by the landlord on the ground that the shop in question is needed for his son Manish Srivastava, who is unemployed. It is also stated that the landlord had retired from the post of Senior Assistant, District Supply Office, Gorakhpur in the year 2007, he would assist his son. His elder son Manish was earlier preparing for the competitive examinations and had taken a temporary job in HDFC Bank, Gorakhpur as a Sales Executive in December 2006. However, he had to resign in compelling circumstances in the month of November 2007. He again took a job in November 2007 in IDBI Bank, Gorakhpur which he had to leave in August 2008. Since thereafter, he is sitting idle and has lost hope of getting a decent job.

4. Now, he wants to start a business of electric fittings in the shop in question as it is the most suitable place for the business proposed.

5. The tenant got constructed a commercial-cum-residential complex at a short distance from the shop in question and as such he would not suffer any hardship, in case, the shop in question is released.

6. The release was contested by the tenant and a specific stand has been taken in the written statement that in the shop marked by letter “P” (shown in the map appended to the written statement) (hereinafter referred to as Shop “P”), initially, somewhere around the year 1996-97, Manish Srivastava, son of the landlord was doing business in the name of “Manish Provision Stores”. He continued this business till the year 2008 and, thereafter, electric business in the name of “Abhishek Electricals” was started in the same shop “P” which was also being carried on by the elder son of the landlord namely Manish Srivastava. The said shop namely Shop “P” is still in occupation of Manish Srivastava. The contention of the landlord that his son is sitting idle is incorrect and he does not require the shop in question.

7. So far as another son of the landlord namely Abhishek Kumar Srivastava is concerned, he is working as a Sales Manager in M/S Mahendra Company and is getting good salary.

8. In rejoinder, the landlord averred that Manish Srivastava, his elder son though started business of provision store and later on of electric goods in Shop “P” as submitted by the tenant but he had to close these business. The electric goods business which was started in the year 2003 could not be continued on account of losses suffered by Manish Srivastava and somehow he had managed to repay the loans. In paragraph ‘13’ of the rejoinder-affidavit, it is stated that shop “P” has been given on rent to one Gopal Kumar Gupta and is in his possession w.e.f. 1.10.2005 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1500 p.m/-. A written deed dated 17.1.2006 has been executed in this regard. The business of sale of electric fans and spare parts in Shop “P” is being run by Sri Gopal Kumar Gupta and it is not in the vacant possession of the landlord.

9. It appears that after exchange of affidavits, during the course of arguments before the Courts below, the tenant kept on insisting that the Shop “P” is not in occupation of the alleged tenant Gopal Kumar Gupta rather Manish Srivastava, the son of the landlord is doing his electrical goods business therein.

10. It appears that certain rent receipts were filed by the landlord to establish that Gopal Kumar Gupta was the sitting tenant in shop “P” but an objection was raised during the course of arguments that the rent receipts were of the period after filing of the release application. The argument of the tenant regarding