Sudhir Chandra Verma, J. - (1.) THE petitioner -tenant is aggrieved by the order, dated 23 -7 -1987 passed by the Additional District Judge, Dehradun setting aside the, order, dated 25 -9 -1988 of the Prescribed Authority rejecting the application of the landlord under Section 21 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The application for release was filed with the allegations that after the death of Jagdish Prasad on 13 -3 -1980, respondents Nos. 2 to 8 became the owner landlords of the property being the heirs of the deceased. The petitioner occupied one shop on the ground floor and two rooms, a verandah and a Kitchen on the first floor and Opposite Party No. 2 inderjeet occupied one shop on the ground floor. The property was let out initially as the contesting respondents were minors and were not in a position to establish any business of their own. Vinay Kumar is temporarily engaged in a shop in Paltan Bazar. Ashok Kumar has done his B.A. and is employed as a Clerk in a Farm. Sushil Kumar has done his B.A. and has also taken some training for running a business. The sons want to establish in business and to augment the income and there is no other source of income except the rent. The marriages of the daughters have also to be performed. It was further alleged that the petitioner opposite party No. 1 Mangna Nand Bhat has an alternative accommodation and he is doing very flourishing business of Dry -cleaning at Kulri, Mussoorie and is not personally looking after the business in the disputed shop and has permitted one Sri Bhupati Ram to run the business and occupy the shop. The opposite party No. 2 has sufficient resources to arrange for an alternative accommodation which is available in the locality. The opposite party No. 1 instead of using the residential accommodation on the first floor is using the same for commercial purposes and on these facts they claimed their need to be bona fide, and genuine.
(2.) THE tenants contested the release application and it was alleged by opposite party No. 1 that initially the shop was let out to Standard Drycleaners in which Mangna Nand Bhat and Bhupati Ram were partners. It was alleged that Vinay Kumar is employed at present with M/s. Jhandu Mal Ram Narain and is doing service for the last 10 years. The second son is employed with Arbar Ecres Farm for several years and he has been transferred to Niranjanpur Branch. Sushil Kumar had started his business with heavy investment at Dharampur Chowk. Ashok Kumar will get employment in Post and Telegraph Department where his father was employed and died in harness and his family is getting family pension and other funds as also rental income which is sufficient for their livelihood. The business in the disputed shop is a partner ship business and has a branch at Kulri, Mussoorie which was opened in 1968 -69, but the opposite party No. 1 is mainly concerned with the disputed shop as the work at Mussoorie is only seasonal. The shop has earned good will and there is no other alternative accommodation available in the near vicinity. The other tenant Inder Jeet, opposite party No. 2, also denied the need of the landlord and the availability of alternative accommodation. The Prescribed Authority held that the need of the applicant lacks bona fide and it was not necessary to compare the hardship.
(3.) THE lower appellate Court rejected the appeal in respect of the accommodation occupied by opposite party No. 2 Inderjeet. It has been held that Inderjeet is occupying the premises from much longer time than Mangna Nand Bhat and he would be put to greater hardship in comparison to the landlord as also in comparison to Mangna Nand Bhat if his shop is released. Moreover the size of the accommodation with opposite party No. 2 is very small. The learned Judge held that the materia on record established that the sons of the landlord have bona fide and genuine need of the accommodation to start their business of Provision Store/General Merchandise. However, with regard to opposite party No. 1, it has been held that the need for the accommodation in possession of opposite party No. 1 is bona fide and genuine for the need of Sushil Kumar. It was alleged on the part of the tenant that Sushil Kumar was running business Sushil Paan Bhandar and has very substantial income from it and he has no intention to establish any new business. The alleged business belongs to the maternal aunt and Sushil Kumar was only helping her business to got some experience. The prescribed Authority was not correct in drawing adverse inference because the maternal aunt Smt. Kusum Trivedi who has owned the business Trivedi Tambul Bhandar did not file her own affidavit to deny the fact. Lastly it was held that Sushil Kumar who was temporarily employed with a salary of Rs. 215 per month in the District Cooperative Federation bona fide needs the disputed shop to start his business of General Merchandise. It was also held that the income from the pensionary benefits of the father are not sufficient to meet the expenses of the family and there is need to augment the income by establishing new business.;