S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenants' writ petition. Application for eviction/release on the ground of bonafide need filed by landlord respondent under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against tenant petitioner regarding a shop was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 12.10.1998 through judgment and order in rent case No. 25 of 1995 on the file of Prescribed Authority/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. Appeal against the same filed by tenant petitioner being rent appeal No. 183 of 1998 was dismissed by Additional District Judge Court No. 1 Kanpur Nagar through judgment and order dated 12.9.2003. This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid judgment and order.
(2.) As far as the question of bonafide need is concerned it was asserted by the tenant and admitted by the landlord that landlord applicant No. 2 the son of landlord applicant No.1, was doing business along with his father applicant No. 1 in house No. 50/30 Naughara, Kanpur Nagar. Doing business with father or any other family member is no ground to deny the bonafide need for establishing independent business (A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 532). The second point urged by learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner is that through agreement dated 15.4.1990, tenant parted with about ⅓ of the tenanted accommodation in favour of Harbansh Lal one of the landlords the number of which was 9/12-A. Prior to that petitioner was tenant of shop Nos. 9/6, 9/6-A and 9/7, 9/7-A and 9/12-A. The said agreement was executed in between tenant petitioner and Charanjeet Lal (respondent No. 3 in the instant writ petition) Madan Lal and Harbans Lal who are real brothers. On the request of this Court both the parties have filed rough sketch map of the property in dispute. After the agreement of 1990 the property which remained in possession of the tenant i.e. 9/6, 9/6-A and 9/7, 9/7-A is 24' X 20'. The release application was filed for getting shop No. 9/7, 9/7-A vacated. In Para 4 of the agreement, which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, it was provided that in future Madan Lal will receive the rent of shop No. 9/6, 9/6-A while Charanjeet Lal will receive the rent of shop No. 9/7, 9/7-A.
(3.) Apart from it tenant also filed a case under Section 30 of the Act, regarding the property in dispute i.e. shop No. 9/7, 9/7-A showing respondent No. 3 Charanjeet Lal as landlord. The vacation of one shop through agreement of T990 in favour of Harbans Lal therefore, cannot benefit the tenant at all. The said shop was given to Harbans Lal and not to respondent No. 3 Charanjeet Lal, hence it cannot be said to be Available to Charanjeet Lal.;