S.U.Khan - (1.) -This writ petition has been filed by the landlady whose release application being P.A. Case No. 14 of 1987 under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was allowed by the prescribed authority, Jalaun at Orai on 6.8.1994. However, appeal filed by tenant-respondent being Rent Appeal No. 20 of 1994 was allowed by District Judge, Jalaun at Orai on 15.11.1994 through which judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority was set aside and release application of the landlady was dismissed.
(2.) THE property in dispute is a shop situated in a by-lane having a width of about 6 feet. THE need set up by the landlady was for starting the business of motor mechanic and selling spare parts of automobiles by her son who had obtained a mechanics diploma from I.T.I. Earlier also landlady had filed release application against the tenant-respondent and some other tenants. THE other tenants were occupying residential accommodation. THE earlier release application with regard to residential portion in occupation of other tenants was allowed. However, with regard to the property in dispute it was dismissed on the ground that the shop was not needed by the landlady for establishing her son in business and that respondent would suffer greater hardship. THE earlier release application was initially allowed but in appeal being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1975, release application was rejected and appeal was allowed by judgment dated 12.12.1980 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Jalaun at Orai. THE said judgment cannot have any bearing as the release application giving rise to the instant writ petition was filed for the need of her son after he became major and obtained diploma of mechanic from I.T.I. THE lower appellate court in the impugned judgment, while reversing the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority, has taken into consideration three points : (1) That the shop is situated in a very narrow lane of about 6 feet width hence not suitable for motor mechanic. (2) Landlady could obtain a shop for her son in a mechanic market, which was advertised by the Municipal Board in the newspaper. (3) Landlady got possession of three rooms meant for residential purposes but as they were situated by the side of the road hence they could be used for commercial purposes. As far as the first point is concerned the landlady had asserted that her son would sell automobile spare parts and repair the motors from the shop in dispute. The aspect of selling spare parts has not been taken into consideration by the lower appellate court. As far as second point is concerned, no landlord can be compelled to take on rent a shop for satisfying his/her or his or her son's need. The position is rather otherwise. It is the duty of the tenant to search alternative accommodation when release application is filed against him. In the instant case, no such effort was made by the tenant.
(3.) AS far as third point is concerned, it is not at all tenable. No landlord can be compelled to use residential accommodation for commercial purposes. In any case, residential accommodation was released for residential purposes, hence it could not be used by the landlady for commercial purposes. In any case, it is common knowledge that except in very few well planned cities like Chandigarh, metallic roads and adjoining patries are actually the workshops of motor mechanics. It is usual site even in big cities like Allahabad that expert mechanics of motor cars carry on flourishing business from very small shops. All the repair work on motor cars or other motor vehicles is done on the roads. Hence the fact that the shop was situate in a gali cannot be a ground for rejecting the need for establishing repair shop and selling spare parts of motor vehicles. By virtue of Rule 16 (2) (d), need for son of landlord having got technical education and no employment with the Government shall be given due consideration.;