K.S.VERMA, J. - (1.) IN Bhinga Town, District Bahraich, opposite party No. 2 is the owner of Building known as Sarai Bhinga. In front of the said building there are 14 shops out to which, he has sold three shops to Jagan Nath, Deen Dayal and Onkar and the remaining shops are in possession of his tenants. Out of these remaining 11 shops, seven shops are in the tenancy of the petitioners who have been carrying on business for the last 24 of 25 years. Opposite party No. 2 filed an application under Section 21 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 for the release of the shops in his favour as he wanted to construct a cinema hall after demolishing the shops. The petitioners filed objections against the application on the ground that the shops were in their possession for the last 25 years in which they were carrying on their business and the said business was the only source of their livelihood. It was alleged that opposite party No. 2 had no genuine need to construct a cinema hall. It was also alleged that the application for release has been made to put pressure on the petitioners within mala fide motives. The Prescribed Authority by order dated 27.10.1979 rejected the application filed by opposite party No. 2 on the ground that the need of opposite party No. 2 was not genuine. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority opposite party No. 2 filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act. The appeal was heard by opposite party No. 1 who allowed it by order dated 10.3.1981. A certified copy of the order has been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. A perusal of Annexure 5 would indicate that in allowing the appeal, opposite party No. 1 was greatly influenced by the fact that after the abolition of Zamindari the income of opposite party No. 2 had diminished, the agricultural land held by him was declared surplus under the provisions of the Ceiling Act and in the circumstances opposite party No. 2 has to augment his income by starting some other business. In this back-ground, the Court below held that the need of opposite party No. 2 for constructing a cinema hall is genuine and if for the construction of a cinema hall the shops have to be demolished, the same may be demolished by the landlord so that he may be able to carry on the business of exhibiting picture in the cinema hall. Section 21 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 provides for the release of Accommodation in favour of the landlord. The said section in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of the controversy between the parties, is reproduced below :- "The Prescribed Authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy ......if it satisfied that.............. (a) that the building is bonafide required either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for ...........purposes of any profession, trade or calling............"
(2.) ANNEXURE 1 to the writ petition is the application of opposite party No. 2 under Section 21 of the Act. In paragraph 5 of the petition it has been stated that opposite party No. 2 bonafide needed demolition of the shops so that he may construct a cinema hall and carry on the business of exhibiting pictures. The petitioner also states that he had applied for permission to construct a cinema hall. Annexure 2 is the copy of the objections filed by the petitioners. In the objections it has been stated that the petitioners have been carrying on business for purposes for the last several years and that the need of opposite party No. 2 for eviction of the tenants for the construction of a cinema hall is not genuine. The question that requires consideration is whether opposite party No. 2 bonafide needs the shops in question for demolition so that a cinema hall may be constructed in accordance with the specification prescribed by the U.P. Cinematography Rules, 1951. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by opposite party No. 2 dated 27.8.1981 indicates that opposite party has obtained sanction for construction of a cinema hall from the District Magistrate who has laid certain conditions for the same. It has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 2 that he has fulfilled all the conditions for obtaining the sanction and permission from the District Magistrate and the construction work of the cinema hall is going on as according to the permission granted by the District Magistrate the cinema hall is to be constructed within a year. Annexure B-1 is the permission granted by the District Magistrate to opposite party No. 2 to construct a cinema hall. Annexure B-1 clearly indicates that if the shops in front of are not demolished, the licence for exhibiting pictures will not be granted. The question that arises is whether in the circumstances of the case permission should be granted to opposite party No. 2 to evict the petitioners from the shops in question so that a cinema hall may be constructed by opposite party No. 2 in accordance with the specification provided by the U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951. It is not in dispute that income from Zamindari property was the main source of livelihood of opposite party No. 2. the Zamindari has been abolished and the agricultural land belonging to him has been declared surplus. If in these circumstances opposite party No. 2 desires to improve his financial position by starting a business, it has to be seen whether such a request for release of the accommodation in question is genuine or not. Section 21 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1973 provides that the authorities constituted under the act have to be satisfied whether the need of opposite party No. 2 for the construction of cinema hall to augment his income after demolishing the accommodation in possession of the tenant is bonafide or not. Opposite party No. 1 has come to a finding of fact that in view of the fact that the income of opposite party No. 2 has considerably diminished on account of abolition of Zamindari and on account of agricultural land having been declared surplus, the need of opposite party No. 2 to augment his income by some other source is a genuine and bonafide requirement. In Mst. Bega Begum v. Abdul Ahad Khan, AIR 1979 SC 272, bonafide need of the landlord for starting new business came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in a case arising out of Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act (34 of 1966). At page 279 of the report the Supreme Court observed as follows :- "Being the owners of the house they cannot be denied eviction and be compelled to live below the poverty line merely to enable the respondents to carry on their flourishing hotel business at the cost of the appellants."
(3.) THE Supreme Court further observed that if the need of the landlords was genuine and reasonable and the premises which belonged to them were required for augmenting their income as the income so far received by them was not sufficient for them, that would be a case of real requirement or genuine need. The Supreme Court was interpreting the word "reasonable requirement" appearing in Section 11(1)(h) of Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966. The views expressed by the learned Judge interpreting the words 'reasonable requirement' in that case would apply to the case in hand as the provisions of Section 21 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 are substantially the same as of Section 11(1)(h) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966. The Supreme Court has emphasized that what is required to be established in such cases is that the accommodation is needed by the landlord for his own use and that the need is bonafide.;