JUDGMENT :

TARUN AGARWALA, J. –

Heard Mr. Sidhartha Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tapan Singh, the learned Counsel holding the brief of Mr. Lok Pal Singh, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.3.

2. In 1993, to be more precise, on 17th January, 1993,a notice was issued on behalf of Jagdish @ Jagrup Verma respondent No.3 to the petitioner intimating him that he should vacate the premises in question as the said premises was required by the landlord for his own use. The said notice was received and, in response thereto, a reply was issued admitting his tenancy and further admitting that respondent No.3 was the landlord. Subsequently, in the year 1993, an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed. The respondent No.3 contended that he is the landlord and has a family of six persons i.e., his wife, three children and mother and, that he requires the accommodation in order to start a business so that he could support his family. In the application, it was categorically stated that he has no other premises where he could start the business."

3. The petitioner resisted the application and submitted that there was no bona fide