Consequently, the application for eviction of the tenant from the premises was rejected by the Prescribed Authority.
A written statement was filed by the respondent tenant wherein the allegations made in the application were denied.
Aggrieved, the landlord appellant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority affirming the finding of the Prescribed Authority.
The writ petition filed by the landlord has also been dismissed by the High Court.
The appellant landlord filed an application before the Prescribed Authority, Varanasi, for eviction of the respondent tenant on the ground that he required the premises for his bona fide need.
In the said application, the landlord also took a plea that the son of respondent tenant who was ordinarily residing with him has companystructed a residential premises in the city of Varanasi, and as such under explanation i to fourth proviso of sub section 1 of Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act , the tenant besides being debarred from companytesting the application, his need has to be presumed bona fide.
The respondent tenant is in occupation of the said premises.
N. KHARE, J. The appellant herein is the landlord of the premises in dispute.
The premises companysists of ground floor and first floor.
