B. N. Sapru, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition filed by the tenants.
(2.) THE landlord, Ram Kumar, filed an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for release of a portion of House No. 327, Bajaja Bazar, Bindki, Fatehpur, in which the petitioners are tenants. The landlord's case was that he wanted to set up his son Jagdish Kumar in business and hence the shop in dispute should be released for that purpose, One Ram Pal was admittedly a tenant of this shop and he was carrying on wholesale business in sugar in the shop. On his death, the petitioners, other than Prakash Chandra, who was in service, claimed that they kept on running the family business and this was the only source of their livelihood. The need of the landlord was denied.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority, on a consideration of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord was genuine and a greater hardship would be caused to the landlord by the rejection of the application than would be caused by the grant of the application. THE application was accordingly allowed by the Prescribed Authority. The tenants preferred an appeal. The appellate authority upheld the order of the Prescribed Authority. It considered the need of the parties and came to the conclusion that the landlord's need for the accommodation in question was genuine. It further went on to hold that the tenants are not entitled to the benefits of sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Rules framed under the Act because while Ram Pal carried on the business of wholesale of sugar, at present the tenant appellants were carrying on a business of sale of sugar in retail and vegetable ghee. It also noted the fact that the business of the tenants was small and petty. It accordingly held that the denial of relief to the landlord would cause greater hardship than would be caused to the tenant by allowing the application for release.;