S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlords respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Rent Control Act, U.P.R.C. Act in short (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972). The release application was registered as case No. 22 of 1988 on the file of prescribed authority/Additional Civil Judge II Bareilly. The building in dispute is a shop. The landlords asserted that they wanted the shop in dispute for starting their independent business therefrom. The prescribed authority found that need of the landlords to be bonafide however release application was rejected on the ground that tenant had no other shop actually available to him hence he would suffer greater hardship in case release application was allowed. The prescribed authority consequently through judgment and order dated 15.3.1991 rejected the release application. Landlords-respondents filed appeal against the said judgment and order under Section 22 of the Act being Rent Control Appeal No. 35 of 1991. Tenant petitioner also filed cross-objection challenging the finding of bonafide need recorded by prescribed authority in favour of the landlords. VIth Additional District Judge Bareilly through judgment and order dated 28.11.1998 allowed the appeal; dismissed the cross objections and set-aside the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority and allowed the release application.
(2.) The main point raised by the tenant and sought to be proved by tenant' affidavit and affidavits of other witnesses was that landlords were participating and helping their father in his business. Both the Courts below held that even if this assertion of the tenant was taken to be correct, it could not dislodged the bonafide need of the landlords to start their own business. The Supreme Court in the following authorities has held that participation in the family business is no ground to refuse the release of the shop on the ground of bonafide need for starting independent business. AIR 2003 SC 780, Sushila v. A.D.J. and AIR 2003 SC 532, A. Kumar v. Mustaquim
(3.) Regarding comparative hardship the appellate Court held that tenant petitioner did not show that he made any efforts to search for alternative accommodation after filing of the release application hence question of comparative hardship was to be decided in favour of the landlords. This view is perfectly in consonance with the authority of the Supreme Court reported in, AIR 2003 SC 2713, B.C. Bhutada v. G.R. Mandada .;