S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by landlords whose release application under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been dismissed by both the Courts below. Release Application was numbered as P.A. Case No. 59 +5f 1980. Prescribed Authority, Allahabad dismissed the release application by judgment and order dated 10th August, 1981. Appeal filed by the landlord being Rent Control Appeal No. 615 of 1981 has also been dismissed by Xth Additional District Judge, Allahabad by order dated 25th January, 1989. The property in dispute is shop. Release application was filed for getting the shop in dispute vacated from tenant/petitioner as applicant No. 6 Mohd. Ahmad required the said shop in order to start some business as he was not engaged anywhere and was idle. Both the Courts below non suited landlords but landlady on the ground that in the release application they did not disclose the extent of residential and non-residential property of which they were landlord. Tenant brought on record document showing that applicants were landlords of several residential and non-residential property. In my opinion, as far as the question of residential accommodation is concerned, it was wholly irrelevant as the release was sought for commercial purpose. As far as non-disclosure of shops is concerned the landlords stated that all the shops belonging to them were let out. The tenant also pleaded that out of several tenants he had been singled out by the landlord on the ground that other tenants had agreed to enhance the rent. In my opinion in this regard no fault can be found with that the landlord. In any case landlords have always liberty to choose any of their tenants forgetting the property released for personal need. Lower Appellate Court has also held that it was not brought on record as to what experience, education and training applicant No. 6, for whose need shop was sought to be released was having for starting the business. In order to start a retail shop neither experience nor training nor education is required. The fact that applicant No. 6 was helping his other brothers in their business is also irrelevant. Every landlord and every adult family member of landlord is entitled to have a separate business. In my opinion, both the Courts below have completely misdirected themselves. Courts below have not kept in mind the principles for deciding the question of need and comparative hardship. Learned Counsel for the tenant has argued that during pendency of proceedings before this Court landlords got vacant possession of several shops and let them out to other tenants. The correctness and relevance of this aspect must also be seen by the Prescribed Authority.
(2.) Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Prescribed Authority. It is clarified that in case it is established that landlords have got any other vacant shop then it must be taken into consideration. The parties may file fresh evidence in the form of affidavits. The Prescribed Authority shall dispose of the release application as expeditiously as possible. Writ petition allowed. ;