Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the landlord against the judgment dated 29.7.1982 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur in Rent Appeal No. 64 of 1980, Sohan Lal v. Ram Kumar, whereby the appeal of the tenant was allowed and order of Prescribed Authority, dated 12.2.1980 was set aside and the release application of the petitioner was rejected: The dispute relates to one shop of the house No. 2/165 Nayab Ganj, Kanpur. The petitioner is the owner and landlord of the said shop and respondent No. 2 was the tenant at the rate of Rs. 12.10 p. per month. During the pendency of the writ petition the tenant has died and his heirs have been substituted. The release application was filed by the petitioner setting up the need of one shop for his son Ajai Kumar who had just started manufacturing soap and needed accommodation for the purpose of the said business. The release application was filed in April 1975 and was registered as PA Case No. 282 of 1977 Ram Kumar v. Sohan Lal. The written statement was filed by the tenant contesting the release application on the ground that the landlord has sufficient accommodation available where he could setup his son business by raising construction. The details were mentioned in para 9 of the written statement. After exchange of affidavits, the Prescribed Authority, allowed the release application vide judgment dated 12.2.1980 holding that the need of the landlord was genuine and bona fide and also need of the landlord is more pressing than the need of the tenant. Against the said judgment the tenant filed an appeal which has been allowed vide judgment dated 29.7.1982 and the release application of the petitioner was rejected. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) I have heard Sri. R.K. Mishra holding brief of Sri. Neeraj Agrawal learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S.M. Dayal, learned Counsel for the respondent. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the reasoning given by the Appellate Court while recording the finding that the petitioner had no need is based upon misreading of the pleadings and not a sound reasoning. The reason given by the appellate authority is that since it was mentioned in the release application that son Ajai Kumar had started business therefore, it was not the case that Ajai Kumar has no place for running his business therefore, it cannot be held that there was any need for Ajai Kumar as he was already running business from some other place. According to the reason given by the Prescribed Authority, the need could be set up only for establishing a new business and not as an aid for any business already started. The reason given by the appellate authority does not appear to be sound and is in ignorance of the pleadings. The specific case of the landlord is that his son has set up a business of manufacturing the soap and wanted place for office and retail outlet of the said product. In para 5 of the release application it was mentioned that the manufacturing had already started but he had no shop for sale of his product in case the shop is made available to him he could carry on his business with greater advantage and propaganda. This aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the appellate authority and thus reasoning of the said authority cannot be accepted. Counsel for the respondent has not been able to justify the above reasoning of the appellate authority.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has further contended that before the appellate authority commission was issued to report regarding carrying of business of cycle by Sohan Lal from his residential accommodation. This report has been relied upon by the appellate authority. The report of the Commissioner has been filed as Annexure -7 to the petition. The report of the Commissioner stated that cycle business was not being carried on from the residential accommodation of the tenant at the house No. 2/140 Navabganj, Kanpur. It also states that the appellate Sohan Lal was carrying on business of manufacturing soap and that this is admitted to both the parties. It also mentions that there was six petro -max (gas lights) kept at the house No. 2/140 of the tenant Sohan Lal. The relevant part is quoted as under: ;