S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord-respondent against him under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground of bona fide need in the form of rent Case No. 105 of 1991 on the file of Prescribed Authority/ACMM IX, Kanpur Nagar. Property in dispute is a shop. Landlords pleaded that they were carrying on business of selling readymade cloths for which they had no permanent place of business. For want of permanent place of business they were compelled to sell their merchandise from door to door and on the street. It was also pleaded that tenant was carrying on additional business of selling Biryani by the side of a street near a talkies. It was further pleaded that the children of landlords were also grown up and they also required a shop to start business. It was pleaded by the tenant that landlords were owner of several houses. However even if this assertion is correct still it will not make any difference as the release is sought regarding a shop and not residential accommodation. Landlord pleaded that a shop situate in building No. 97/258, Bacon Ganj, Kanpur was taken on rent by the tenant at the rate of Rs. 500 per month and from the said shop one son of the tenant was carrying on business. The Courts below found that one shop was in tenancy occupation of the father of landlords in building No. 97/163 in which he was carrying on his business of selling readymade garments with which landlords has no concern. Regarding shop in building No. 97/258, the Courts below found that the son of the tenant was carrying business in the said shop. Regarding the shop in building No. 98/15-A, alleged by the tenant to be in possession of landlords, Courts below held that the same was an underground accommodation and not a shop. Commissioner's report was also taken into consideration by the Courts below. Prescribed Authority by judgment and order dated 17th September, 2001, allowed the release application. Tenant petitioner filed appeal against the said judgment and order under Section 22 of the Act being Rent Appeal No. 65 of 2001. The appeal has also been dismissed by ADJ, Court No. 9, Kanpur Nagar through judgment and order dated 14th August, 2003 hence this writ petition.
(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner -could not show that any shop in vacant state was available to the landlord. Even if landlord was carrying on business in a tenanted accommodation his need to start either his own business or business of his son in the accommodation dispute cannot be denied. The tenanted accommodation in possession of the landlord cannot be considered to be alternative accommodation available to the landlord.;