TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) AN application was instituted in the year 1983 for the release of the ground floor at 9 Gandhi Road, Dehradun by the landlord Prem Singh under section 21(1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').The release application contended that Prem Singh was the owner and landlord of the premise No. 9, Gandhi Road, Dehradun and that the landlord and his family resided on the first floor and that the ground floor was being occupied by the tenant opposite party where he is carrying on his business. The landlord contended that initially, there were three shops on the ground floor, which was let out to three different tenants, namely, Dwarka Das Mangat Ram and P. R. Narang opposite party, but, over a period of time, the opposite party managed is such a way that he became that tenant of the entire ground floor. The landlord contended that he has a wife Premvati and three sons, namely, Inder Singh Verma, Mahendra Singh Verma and Ashok Kumar Verma and, that all his three sons are required to be established indepen ­dently in some business. It was stated that Inder Singh Verma is married and has a wife and a son and two daughhers and that Mahendra Singh Verma has a wife and two sons and that his youngest son Ashok Kumar Verma has a wife and a son. The landlord contended that he is doing a jewellery business at 25, Dhamawala Bazar, Dehradun from a tenanted shop measuring 12' x 14', which is under his tenancy and that because of no available shop, his two sons are also doing the business alongwith him which is becoming insufficient and that the youngest son is doing business in furniture from a place in Ghosi Gali and, on account of his increase in the business, the said shop had become insufficient for his needs and, in any case, the premises at Ghosi Gali is in a side lane and is not on the main road. The landlord contended that Inder Singh Verma met with an accident and he had to be operated on is foot and now cannot walk long distances and therefore if the premises is released, Inder Singh Verma could starts his business from this premise and he would not have to walk a long distance. The landlord also contended that his second son Mahendra Singh Verma also needed the premises to state a separate business in a different line in jewellery business and therefore needs to become independent. The landlord also contended that the tenant had acquired another premises at 10, Gandhi Road, Dehradun which is opposite to the premises in question and where the tenant could easily shift his business.
(2.) THE tenant resisted the application and contended that the landlord had no bona fide need and that the tenant had earned a goodwill and that hardship would be more greater than that of the landlord in the event he is evicted from the premises in question. The prescribed authority, after consider ­ing all aspects of the matter, held that the bona fide need of the landlord was established only to the extent for one of his sons, namely Inder Singh Verma and, consequently, partly allowed the application and release half portion of the premises in question. The landlord and the tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Court, which were dismissed. The tenant and the landlord, being aggrieved, have filed separate writ petitions which have been clubbed together and are being decided by this com ­mon judgment.
(3.) HEAR Sri Ravi Kant, the learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Mr. D. Barthwal, the learned Counsel for the tenant and Mr. Arvind Vashisht, the learned Counsel duly assisted by Mrs. Monika Pant, the learned Counsel for the landlord.;