- (1.) O. P. Garg, J. Santokh Singh was originally a tenant of ground floor portion of premises No. 111/428, Ashok Nagar, Kanpur. The accommodation comprise two shops facing towards the eastern side having their openings on the road. Abut ting the two shops there are two rooms, two kitchens and toilets with an open space to be used as Angan. In between the two shops, there is a passage leading up to Court yard. The petitioners are the sons of late Santokh Singh. Release petition (No. 56 of 1998) was filed by the respondent-landlord against the petitioners under Sec tion 21 (1) of the UP. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). It was partly allowed by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 30-8-1998. The order of release was passed in respect of only one shop. The application for release with regard to the remaining tenanted accom modation was rejected. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority gave rise to two separate appeals, one by the petitioner-tenants (No. 203 of 1998), and the other by the landlord-respondents (No. 210 of 1998) under Section 22 of the Act. The Appellate Court decided both these appeals by a common order dated 29-5-2000. The appeal filed by the petitioner-tenants was dismissed while the appeal preferred by the respondent-landlords was allowed. The order of release in respect of the entire tenanted accommodation was passed. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner-tenants have come before this Court to challenge the order passed by the Appellate Court.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri Manoj Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajeshtandon, Senior Advo cate assisted by Smt. Rajni Agarwal, Advo cate on behalf of the respondent. From the material brought on record, the following facts are unfolded. The landlords of the tenanted premises are N. P. Agarwal who retired from engineer ing service his wife Smt. Pushpa and two sons Anurag Agarwal and Sandeep Agar wal. Wife of Anurag Agarwal is Smt. Priti Agarwal while Smt. Rajni, Agarwal, Advo cate is the wife of Sandeep Agarwal who at the relevant time was posted in service at Lucknow, later on transferred to Jaunpur and has now come to Kanpur. The release petition was filed with the allega tion that Anurag Agarwal requires one of the shops for the purpose of establishing a photo studio which was later on changed and limited to one shop to be used as a chamber for doing share business. The remaining accommodation was required for establishing a consultancy chamber by N. K. Agarwal, who retired from Public Works Department and for establishing an office and chamber for Smt. Rajni Agar wal, who is practising Advocate. It was also pleaded that Smt. Priti Agarwal, wife of Anurag Agarwal was not medically fit to go upstairs and, therefore, she required one of the rooms for her occupation on the ground floor. After taking into considera tion the evidence of the parties and respec tive submissions made on their behalf, the Prescribed Authority rejected the need of N. P. Agarwal, Smt. Rajni Agarwal and that of Smt. Priti Agarwal. The need to have one shop to establish a chamber for doing share business by Anurag Agarwal was accepted. On appeal 'the landlords' need for the entire tenanted accommodation was found to be bonafide and genuine. Sri Manoj Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the residential-cum-commercial accommodation released entirely for commercial purpose, which is not permissible under the provisions of proviso (iii) to Section 21 (1) of the Act maintained that the residential accommodation cannot be converted for commercial purpose. It was also urged that the need of Smt. Priti Agarwal wife of Anurag Agarwal has not been accepted by the Appellate Court and consequently the entire tenanted accommodation could not be released. It was also suggested that the tenanted portion has fallen to the share of Anurag Agarwal as a result of the partition and, therefore, Smt. Rajni Agar wal and N. P. Agarwal cannot be treated as the members of the family of Anurag Agarwal in view of definition of the expres sion family given in Section 3 (e) of the Act. The order passed by the Appellate Court was also criticized by Sri Manoj Misra on the ground that it had admitted additional evidence without passing a reasoned order. Sri. Manoj Misra maintained that it was eminently a suited case in which look ing to the need of the landlords at best, a portion of the tenanted accommodation should have been released instead of pass ing a blanket and sweeping order for the release of the entire accommodation. All these submissions have been repelled by Srirajesh Tandon appearing on behalf of the landlords.
(3.) A plethora of decisions of this Court as well as Apex Court was placed before this Court of consideration in sup port of one or the other contention. I have given thoughtful considera tion to the matter. The tenanted accom modation as described above, comprises of two shops and two adjoining rooms. The need of the landlords to occupy the said accommodation cannot be said to be fanci ful or imaginary. It is bonafide and honest, insofar as it relates to the settlement of Anurag Agarwal in share business and Smt. Rajni Agarwal wife of Sandeep Agar wal in establishing a chamber for legal profession. Capital was sought to be made on the point that husband of Smt. Rajni Agarwal is posted at Lucknow and there appears to be no reason why Smt. Rajni Agarwal should stay away from her hus band. It was also obliquely suggested that she is not in active practice as an Advocate at Kanpur. There is enough material on record to suggest that she is staying at Kanpur with her in-laws and brother-in-law as her husband is posted at Lucknow on a transferable post. The children of Smt. Rajni Agarwal are admitted in Kan pur. Lucknow is a place not far away from Kanpur and Sandeep Agarwal is in a posi tion to visit Kanpur off and on after office hours or on holidays. Now he has come back on transfer to Kanpur to live with his parents and wife. The President Bar As sociation on Kanpur has issued a certifi cate that Smt. Rajni Agarwal is enrolled as an Advocate and is, in fact, engaged in legal practice. The details of the cases in which Smt. Rajni Agarwal has put in her appearance before the various Courts in Kanpur as an Advocate have been given. There is substantial material of record to prove the fact that Smt. Rajni Agarwal in active practising. A practice Advocate un doubtedly is required to have a separate, office which may have enough space to house a library, record room to accommodate his juniors and clerks besides place consultation with clients and waiting room, for the clients. At least, two-rooms accom modation is the minimum requirement for the purpose. A portion of the tenanted accommodation may be used by Anurag Agarwal for establishing a chamber to do share business. Over and above, the said requirement, the remaining portion of the tenanted accommodation is not required by the landlords who are in the occupation of the first floor of the house for their residential purpose.;