Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by tenant against whom release application filed by the landlord respondent under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, registered as case No. 16/1997, was allowed by Prescribed Authority/ACMM IV, Kanpur Nagar, by order dated 18.5.2001. Appeal filed against the same, registered as Rent Appeal No. 48 of 2001, was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 30.1.2003, passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 17, Kanpur Nagar. The property in dispute is a shop in which tenant/a doctor is carrying on his clinic, map of the property in dispute is at Page 97 of the petition. In the release application, which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition, it has been stated in Paragraph 9 that the petitioner No. 1 is married having two children and is aged about 42 years. He has got no shop and is unemployed without any business, therefore, he needs some shop to start his own business and earn livelihood for his family.
(2.) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that precise nature of business, which he intended to start, has not been disclosed in the release application and it is fatal. The Supreme Court in the authority reported in, : AIR 1995 SC 576, has held that it is not necessary for a landlord seeking release of a shop, to disclose the precise nature of business sought to be established. The Supreme Court further held that even if particular business is indicated, nobody can prevent the landlord from changing the business. The other argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that according to Paragraph 9 of the release application, at the time of filing of the same, the petitioner was 42 years of age and he did not disclose as to what occupation he was carrying on prior to that. This respect of the matter can also not support the petitioner. The fact that a person remained idle till the age of 42 years does not mean that he should be asked to remain idle through out his life and not permitted to start business at that age. The tenant -petitioner should be thankful to the landlord respondent for permitting him to continue his occupation from the premises in dispute. In case landlord had decided to start business at an early age, the petitioner would have been dispossessed earlier. In any case, it has not been pointed out by the tenant -petitioner that landlord was so gainfully engaged in some business or occupation that he did not require the shop in dispute. Such apprehension of tenant has been taken care of by the Act in the form of section 24, according to which if the premises got released under section 21 of the Act is not put to the use for which it was released, tenant can reclaim the same. Learned counsel for the tenant petitioner has vehemently argued that the theory of partition among the landlords is bogus and designed only for the purpose of release. The Supreme Court in the authority reported in : AIR 1997 SC 998, has held that partition among landlords cannot be questioned by the tenant except on the ground that it was malafide and brought into the existence only for evicting the tenant. In the instant case the tenant has not been able to substantiate the said allegations. Even if the partition is ignored the landlord for whose need application was filed, can maintain his claim. Premises may be sought to be released for the need of any of the landlords or any member of the family of any of the landlords.
(3.) THE Supreme Court in : AIR 2001 page 1441, has held that High Court can interfere with the finding of bona fide need only if the findings suffer from "inherent defect or are based on inadmissible evidence or irrelevant material or are perverse.";