The need to consider the specific need set up in the release application and not to go beyond the pleadings.

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. -- Heard Shri M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Shri B.N. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The instant writ petition arises out of a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 filed by the opposite party.

3. This release was sought of two shops on the second and third floor with a stair case in the tenancy of the petitioner. The release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 20.02.2015 and the consequential appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 30.09.2016. Hence this writ petition challenging the aforesaid two orders.

4. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the land lady purchased the building, wherein the shop in dispute is situated on 21.01.2012. It is held that a six months notice was served upon the petitioner and, thereafter, the release application was filed. In paragraph 4 of the release application, it has been specifically averred that the land lady has three sons, namely Riaz Ahmad, Ayaz Ahmad and Irshad Ahmad. The shop in issue is required for the benefit and personal need of Riaz, aged about 45 years, a graduate and having four children.

5. In paragraph 10 and 13 of the release application, the need of Riaz Ahmad was specifically set up. It was also the case of the land lady that the tenant has a house in Shyam Nagar. There is a house in the name of the tenant's wife in Mohalla Tilak Nagar. In both the houses there is space where the tenant can shift his business. He is also possessed of vacant land near Konch Bus Stand, where he can construct a shop for himself.

6. The release application was contested by the petitioner alleging that Riaz Ahmad was not unemployed. He was the owner of Riaz Shoe Store situated on the ground floor of the building from prior to its purchase by his mother in 2012. The TIN number of this business was mentioned in the written statement and it was also stated that he was earning approximately 15,000/- per month from the shoe business. He was also alleged to be possessed of agricultural land. His father had a licence for fire works and crackers which business was being conducted by Riaz Ahmad. It is also alleged that Riaz Ahmad and Irshad Ahmad had jointly purchased a building wherein they had a shoe business. Besides another release application being PA Case No. 2 of 2007 had been filed setting up the need of Riaz Ahmad and Irshad Ahmad. This release application had been allowed and, therefore, the need of Riaz Ahmad set up in the instant release application was not bonafide. It is also alleged that there is no place for construction of a shop in the house in the name of the petitioner's wife. Besides the entire accommodation is in the occupation of various tenants.

7. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the release application has been allowed on the reasoning that since the petitioner possessed alternative accommodation in Mohalla Shyam Nagar and Tilak Nagar as also land near Konch Bus Stand, he is not entitled to contest the proceedings and the need of the land lady set up in the release application is bonafide.

8. It is further contended that although the need of Riaz Ahmad had been set up, there was a shoe shop in the name and style of Riaz Shoe Store. Moreover, another release application setting up the need of the same Riaz and his brother Irshad had already been allowed and the shop in question in that case, had been released in their favour, and duly vacated by the tenant Mohd. Ayyer. It is also submitted that the Assessment Register extract filed on record showed that Riaz Ahmad was also recorded as a tenant therein. It is therefore stood established on record that Riaz Ahmad was running his shoe business in the building purchased by his mother from prior to its purchase. The above documentary evidence had wrongly and illegally been ignored while passing the order on the release application, on the reasoning that it was not