Pankaj Mithal, J. –

Heard Sri Alok Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Gupta, who appears for the respondent.

2. Petitioner is a tenant of a shop of which respondent is a landlord. The landlord applied for its release under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the bona fide need of his two sons Vimal Gupta and Sanjay Gupta. The release application has been allowed by the prescribed authority and the judgment and order has been affirmed by the appellate court.

3. Aggrieved by the judgments and orders of the court below allowing the release application, tenant has preferred this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following three points.

First, the need of the landlord is not bona fide and the finding in this regard is perverse. Secondly, the courts below have not considered for the part release of the shop as provided under Rule 16(d) of the Rules framed under the Act. Lastly, the appellate court has affirmed the findings of the prescribed authority without application of mind without recording reasons.

5. The landlord applied for the release of the shop for settling his t