- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction release proceedings initiated by landlords against tenant under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which was registered as case No. 1 of 1981 on the file of Prescribed Authority/munsif Chandausi, District Moradabad. The Prescribed Authority by judgment and order dated 25-5-1982, allowed the release application. Tenant filed appeal against the same under Section 22 of the Act. V Additional District Judge, Moradabad has allowed the appeal by judgment and order dated 17-5-1985 (appeal was numbered as Rent Control Appeal No. 34 of 1982 ). THIS writ petition is directed against the aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Court. The original tenant Sri Dhillo Ram died during the pendency of the appeal and was substituted by his widow Smt. Govindi Bai and sons Rijhu Mal and Ganga Das. In appeal Mool Chand grand-son of original tenant Dhillo Ram stated that he had separated from his father and was carrying on business in the shop in dispute. The Appellate Court held that after the death of the tenant his widow could carry on business in the shop through her grand-son Mool Chand. The release application was filed by the landlord for establishing his sixth son Ramendra Kumar. Appellate Court held that other sons of the landlord were carrying on business and Ramendra Kumar could also share in any one of the businesses. This view of the Appellate Court was quite erroneous in law. Every adult members of the family of landlord has got right to start independent business. Mere fact that some of the sons of landlord are established in business does not warrant dismissal of the release application filed for establishing other son of the landlord in business. The two sons of the original tenant i. e. respondents No. 4 and 5 did not set up the case that they would be requiring the shop in dispute for doing any business. Regarding comparative hardship nothing was brought on record by the tenant to show that he made any efforts to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application. Accordingly writ petition is allowed. Judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court is set-aside and that of the trial Court/prescribed authority is restored.
(3.) TENANTS respondents are granted six months time to vacate provided that within one month from today they file an undertaking before the prescribed authority to the effect that on or before expiry of the aforesaid period of six months they would willingly handover the possession of the shop in dispute to the landlord petitioner. Petition allowed. .;