Sangeeta Chandra, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the tenant petitioner challenging order dated 09.03.2018 passed by Additional District Judge rejecting the PA Appeal No. 2 of 2014 preferred against judgment and order dated 31.10.2014 passed by Prescribed Authority in PA Case No. 4 of 2008: Gulam Mohammad Vs. Avadhesh Kumar Gupta.

2. The facts which are relevant for decision of the controversy are being given herein below:-

3. A release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by learned counsel for respondent against tenant petitioner for release of shop situated at Mohalla Guruhai, Qasba, Pergana and District Auraiya.

4. The landlord alleged that his two sons Mohd. Farukh and Mohd. Shaan were unmarried and he needed to set up Mohd. Shaan in the shop in question to run the business of motorcycle spare parts and repairing. A copy of the release application has been filed as Annexure - 3 to the writ petition.

5. A perusal of the Release Application shows that the landlord alleged that he had given the shop in question on rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month along with 9% of rent as water tax to the tenant petitioner through a written lease agreement dated 03.05.1993. Under the written agreement the tenancy was month to month. For sometime, the tenant paid the rent, but later on from July, 2007 onwards he stopped paying the rent. No water tax was paid by the tenant at all during this time. When, the landlord tried to approach the tenant for giving of arrears of rent the tenant misbehaved with him openly, and therefore, on 18.03.2008 he sent a legal notice to the tenant petitioner for giving arrears of rent and for determining the tenancy. The notice was received by the tenant but he did not send any reply to it nor did he vacate the premises in question. The landlord had two sons who were unemployed and one daughter of marriageable age. He wished to set up his younger son Mohd. Shaan in the shop to be vacated by the tenant for selling motorcycle spare parts and for repair of motorcycle. He did not wish to continue the tenancy of the petitioner or any other person in the shop in question any more.

6. In paragraph - 13 of the said application there is a specific mention that in case the shop in question is directed to be vacated by the Prescribed Authority, he is ready to pay the compensation to the tenant too.

7. The tenant filed his written statement admitting that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between him and Gulam Mohammad, the applicant. He alleged that there was no agreement to pay water tax as water tax was included in the rent of Rs. 150/- per month. It was alleged that the landlord had sufficient accommodation as besides one shop that landlord occupied himself and was running a tea stall therein, there was one shop which he had let out to one Arvind Dubey, the other shop was let out to the petitioner where he ran his business of general merchants. There were two other shops - there was one in which Mohd. Farukh, the elder son of the landlord, had set up his business of selling biscuits and cold drink and namkeen etc. and there was another shop which was lying vacant, which could be easily used for setting up the business of second son Mohd. Shaan.

8. It was alleged that the landlord stopped accepting the rent with malafide intention since the year 2000 and therefore, the tenant had to deposit the rent under Section 30 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Auraiya in Misc. Case No. 30 of 2000. Later on, when the landlord intimated to the tenant that he was facing great difficulty in getting the rent from the Court and was ready to take the rent again, the tenant started paying him the rent again at the enhanced rate of Rs. 175/- per month. In 2008 the landlord again stopped taking the rent although it was offered to him by the money order, and the tenant had deposited the same in Court under Section 30 of the Act in Misc. Case No. 9 of 2008. The rent u