Sudhir Chandra Verma J. - (1.) BY the impugned order dated 30 -1 -1989 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Aligarh, the appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, has been allowed by which the release application of the landlord in respect of the disputed shop has been granted. The petitioner/tenant is alleged to be using the shop for selling the vegetables sitting on the Patri lying in front of the shop. The tenant claimed that the disputed shop was also in occupation of his father who was doing the same business. The landlord needed the disputed shop to settle his sons, the eldest being 24 years old, the second one being 22 years old and the youngest one of 18 years of age. The sons are without employment and as two of them have completed their studies, they intend to establish their independent business of Chemist and Hosiery.
(2.) THE Prescribed Authority rejected the release application holding that the need of the landlord is not bona fide and genuine as the sons of the landlord do not possess the necessary technical qualification to establish the business of Chemist and Hosiery. The landlord has constructed new shops and has established fertilizer business where the sons could be engaged. The landlord was also doing the business of oil expeller in the ancestral house which has now been stopped and the accommodation in the residential house could be utilised for business purposes. On comparison of hardship, it was held that the tenant who has a family of 22 members would be uprooted and as they have no source of income except from the disputed shop, their need was more pressing. These findings have been set aside by the appellate authority after holding that the sons of the landlord have to be established independently in business for which they require accommodation. Merely because they are not experienced persons would not make their need disappear. Moreover, for running the Chemist shop, licence in Pharmacy is not required to be obtained by the owner and for doing the business of Hosiery, no experties is needed. It is established that the sons of the landlord are not engaged in any business and they have to be settled. As regards the oil expeller business the same has been stopped and sold and the place where it was installed had gone to the share of other co -sharers on partition and as such the portion of the residential house is not available for establishing the business. The landlord has constructed a new shop and has started fertilizer business in the name of his wife but the sons have not been engaged in this business and they require accommodation to start separate and independent business The landlord has no other accommodation except the disputed shop which is suitable to establish the Chemist and Hosiery business. The need of the landlord on the aforesaid grounds was found to be bona fide and genuine. On comparison of hardship, it was also found that the need of the landlord was more pressing as the tenant was doing the vegetable business on the Patri in front of the shop in dispute after paying Tehbazari to the Municipal Board. The tenant was also selling the vegetables on the Thela.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and it has been strenuously urged that the sons of the landlord could not start the Chemist and Hosiery business as they do not possess B. Pharm Degree or Licence. As indicated in the order of the appellate authority, it is correct that for establishing a Chemist Shop, B. Pharm degree is not necessary for the owner. It may be that for dispensing the medicines the services of a Pharmacist may be required, but for establishing the business of Chemist, no technical training or B. Pharm degree is necessary. It is also not correct that any licence for Hosiery Shop would be required or any practical experience is necessary for establishing a Hosiery business.;