Appellant brought to the numberice of the High Court that he had been evicted from the tenanted premises where he was carrying on business and, therefore, he was left with numberaccommodation to earn his livelihood.
In the year 1947 respondent number1 Ram Lakhan was inducted as a tenant in the shop in question on monthly rent of Rs.40/ by the then owner.
Family of the appellant at that time was very small.
After the death of his mother, appellant became owner of the property.
The First Appellant Authority upheld the order of rejection by the Prescribed Authority.
In the year 1952 the disputed shop was purchased by the appellants mother Smt.
Pyari Kunwar.
2480 OF 2007 Arising Out of S.L.P. C No.9817 of 2004 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
As appellants son Asthbujhi Prasad wanted to carry on business the said shop is being used by him.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court.
Appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court questioning companyrectness of the judgment and order dated 22.4.1983 of the Appellate Authority affirming order of the Prescribed Authority.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Appellant has three sons.
During the pendency of the case before the High Court, the appellant was evicted from the said shop and he has numberother premises to carry on the business.
The same was resisted by the respondent.
The background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows Appellant is the owner and the landlord in respect of disputed shop situated in Mohalla Asifganj, Azamgarh City, Uttar Pradesh.
The Prescribed Authority on the report of the Commissioner, who was appointed to make inspection of the premises, held that the eviction petition was number maintainable.
By the impugned judgment the High Court came to the companyclusion that even if it is found that the decisions of the Courts below are erroneous in law, the matter needs to be remanded to the prescribed authority.
A release petition was filed by the appellant claiming to be the landlord under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 in short the Act .
Apart from the disputed shop, the appellant had another small shop adjacent to it.
