JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Divakar Rai Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The petitioner-tenant through the present petition has assailed the judgment and order dated 02.11.2018 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes Court, Aligarh in UPUB Case No.33 of 2012 whereby application of respondent-landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1972') for release of a godown has been allowed, and judgment and order dated 25.10.2019 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Aligarh dismissing the UPUB Miscellaneous Appeal No.10 of 2018 preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 2.11.2018.

3. The respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred as 'respondent') has filed release application under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act, 1972 against the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred as 'petitioner') registered as UPUB Case No.33 of 2012 for release of a godown which exists over an area of 72 square yards in the property bearing municipal No.7/3, Patthar Bazar, Shahar Koil, Aligarh. The case of the respondent is that property bearing municipal No.7/3, Patthar Bazar, Shahar Koil, Aligarh (hereinafter referred as 'property') was purchased by the respondent and his three brothers by sale deed dated 25.06.1994 from one Upendra Kumar. A godown in an area of 72 square yards exists over the aforesaid property. It is stated that respondent and his brother Gopal Prasad Agarwal in January 1995 decided to rent out the aforesaid godown to the petitioner on rent @ Rs.1,000/-per month. The petitioner became tenant of the aforesaid godown since January 1995 @ Rs.1,000/-per month. The petitioner had paid the rent @ Rs.1,000/-to Gopal Prasad Agarwal till January 1996, thereafter, no rent was paid which led to the institution of a suit for eviction and arrears of rent by Gopal Prasad Agarwal against the petitioner.

4. It is further stated that the family settlement had entered into between the respondent, his brother Gopal Prasad Agarwal and two other brothers namely Ganga Prasad Agarwal and Atish Kumar (since deceased) on 01.09.2011 in which godown came in the share of the respondent. The respondent suffered a paralytic attack on 04.09.2011 due to which he became unemployed. The respondent has no source of income and he needs money for the education of his eldest son Shivam Agarwal. It is further stated that the financial condition of the family of the respondent is in distress. His eldest son has experience of the business of hardware and plywood and the godown is needed for the establishment of business of his son. It is also averred that the petitioner has other shops in his possession, and he would not face hardship in shifting his business in those shop. In the aforesaid backdrop, respondent has prayed for the release of the godown.

5. The petitioner filed written statement contending inter alia that as per notice dated 12.09.2012 of the respondent, the godown had come in the share of Gopal Prasad Agarwal in a family settlement. Hence, Gopal Prasad Agarwal is the owner of the godown. The respondent has not filed any document to show his title over the godown. It is further pleaded that Gopal Prasad Agarwal had instituted Suit No.39 of 2009 against the petitioner in respect of the godown for eviction and arrears of rent in which respondent had filed an application for impleadment based on family settlement dated 01.09.2011 which was dismissed on the ground that family settlement is not registered. It is also pleaded that father of the petitioner Ganeshi Lal Prem Dayal was the tenant of the godown for the last 72 years and was doing business in the name and style of 'Shri Ganeshi Lal Prem Dayal'. The petitioner denied that respondent is the owner of the godown, therefore, release application by the respondent is not maintainable. Besides above, petitioner also denied the fact that the need of the responde