Sudhir Narain, J.@mdashThis writ petition is directed against an order of the appellate authority dated 1191997 allowing the appeal and dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The petitioner filed application under Section 21(1)(a) of UP Act on 13th June, 1980, with the allegation that he has two sons, namely, Ashok Kumar and Pawan Kumar. Ashok Kumar requires the disputed shop for carrying his business. The tenantrespondent has denied that landlord''s need was bona fide. .The prescribed authority on consideration of material evidence on record came to the conclusion that the need for the disputed shop to establish Ashok Kumar''s business was bona fide and he would suffer greater hardship in case his application was rejected. Respondent filed an appeal ..kainst the sard order. The appellate authority has allowed the appeal by the impugned order dated 1191987 and rejected the application filed by the petitioner.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. During the pendency of the appeal, respondents filed affidavits indicating that Ashok Kumar was carrying on his business and has a candle factory. The contention of the petitioner was that the candle factor was a temporary phase and it has been closed. He further sought time to file other documents in rebuttal. The appellate authority rejected the prayer for further time with the following observations:
�The landlord also wanted to file some evidence in rebuital, but since the affidavit of these 4 deponents were admitted only to the extent the allegation made to rebut the allegations of the affidavit of landlord hence there was no occasion to provide further opportunity to file the rebuttal against rebuttal.�
4. The appellate authority was not justified in not granting further time to the petitioner to lead further evidence. Secondly, it was to be examined as to whether the alleged factory established by Ashok Kumar, son of the petitioner, was a temporary one. He should have appointed a commissioner to inspect the said factory to find out as to whether the said premises belongs to the landlord.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to decide afresh the appeal afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the above observations. It will be open to the concerned parties to lead further evidence in the case, taking into account all the subsequent developments ''which might have taken place during the last 20 years. The appeal shall be decided within 3 months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.
