Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28191 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24248 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shyam Mohan Pitariya Respondent :- District Judge Lakhimpur Kheri And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Aslam Khan Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. None has appeared for the respondents even in the revised call. 3. Present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 11.07.2018 whereby the appellate authority in exercise of powers conferred by virtue of Section 22 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 set aside the order of release dated 24.11.2016. 4. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner being the landlord of the premises in occupation of the tenants moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. In Para 9 of the said application, it was stated that the petitioner has an MBA degree, however, he could not get a job and is unemployed and wants to start his own business. The prescribed authority after hearing the parties framed two issues with regard to bonafide need as pleaded as well as the comparative hardship in between the parties. While deciding the issue in respect of the bonafide need, the evidence as led by the landlord was taken into consideration and a finding was recorded that the petitioner has pleaded and established that he wanted to establish his own business on the shop in question and thus, the release application is allowed. 5. Challenging the said order, an appeal was preferred by three tenants out of the six against whom the release application was filed. The appellate authority by means of the order impugned allowed the appeal mainly on the ground that on one hand, the petitioner has stated that the building is in a dilapidated condition and he would reconstruct the shops and start his own business, however, he has not disclosed as to where would the funds come from and has also not disclosed as to what business was he intending to start. 6. The said view is clearly erroneous inasmuch as under the Rules and the Act being U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, there is no requirement of disclosing the nature of the business proposed to be established over the tenanted occupation after its release. The pleading on record clearly states that the petitioner was unemployed and did not have any job and wanted to establish his own business. Merely because he does not disclose the nature of the business proposed to be established, the need as set up and established cannot be said to be non-existent. 7. In view thereof, the appellate order dated 11.07.2018 cannot be sustained and is quashed. 8. Order dated 24.11.2016 passed by the prescribed authority is affirmed. 9. Respondents shall vacate the premises, if not already vacated, within a period of three months from today. 10. Present petition stands allowed in above terms. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench