S. D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) :-
(2.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings for release under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner is a tenant. Smt. Zaibunnissa, respondent no. 1, is the landlady of the said premises. The property in dispute bears municipal no. 6/630, situate in Saharanpur. Initially, the application was filed by Haji Salam under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on the ground of need for residence as well as for business purposes. During the pendency of the application, Abdul Salam died on 10th December, 1979. Smt. Zaibunnissa, the widow, thereafter, got the application for release amended and sought release on the ground that she requires the accommodation for the residence of herself and four children. She also wants to start a business in a portion of the property, which are the shops, in order to maintain herself and the children. This application was contested by the petitioner and it was denied that the respondent had a bona fide need for the premises in question. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 29th July, 1980, allowed the release application holding that the need of the landlady was bona fide and genuine and that greater hardship will be caused to her in case the release application is rejected. Against the said decision, an appeal was filed under section 22 of the Act in the court of the District Judge, Saharanpur. The District Judge, Saharanpur, by his judgment dated 10th November, 1980, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner has now challenged the orders of the Prescribed Authority aswell as that of the appellate court by means of the present petition.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has raised two contentions before me. The first contention of the petitioner is that in accordance with Rule 16 (1) (d) of the Rules framed under the Act, it was mandatory for the courts below to have considered whether part of the building under the tenancy of the petitioner would serve the need of the respondent no. 1 or not. Since this has not been considered, therefore, the finding in regard to bona fide need is vitiated in law. This submission relates to the portion, of the building, which is in occupation of the petitioner for residential purposes. The second submission of the petitioner is that in accordance with Rule 16 (2) (b) of the Rules, it was mandatory for the courts below to have found that the petitioner can shift his business without substantial loss in the alternative accommodation available with him and in the absence of this finding, the finding with regard to comparative hardship is vitiated in law.;