The Prescribed Authority considered the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record and entered a specific finding that Ajai Narain Gupta is registered as a lawyer with Bar Council U.P. and is also doing Notary work. In connection with the same, he is not having any suitable accommodation. Consequently, he required the tenanted shop for opening his chamber and for doing Notary work. The Court also considered the plea of the petitioner that Ajai Narain Gupta was sitting in medicine shop of his father. The court held that certain photographs filed by the petitioner to prove the said fact, does not establish that the business was being run by him. The Prescribed Authority rightly held that if a son sits in the shop of his father, it cannot be inferred that he is engaged in the said business. Concededly, no documentary evidence was filed by the petitioner to prove that the grocery business or the alleged medical store are actually being run by Ajai Narain Gupta or he had any share in the said business. It was also held that the other shop was being used by the daughter-in-law for running a PCO and the plea taken by the petitioner that the said business is no more being run, has been repelled in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
