S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) This is landladys writ petition arising out of release proceeding initiated by her under Section 16 (1) (b) of U.P. Act No. 13/72 on the ground of her bona fide need in respect of accommodation in dispute which is situated on the ground floor and consists of a shop and a chabutra in front thereof. The accommodation in dispute is part of a double storied building which was purchased by landlady in November, 1980. According to the petitioner, she had purchased the building in dispute for her own use residential as well as commercial. After vacation of the accommodation in dispute by outgoing tenant petitioner, occupied the same and filed the release application in question before R.C. and E.O./A.C.M. V. Kanpur which was registered as Case No. 358/83. Release application was initially rejected on 8th September, 1983 against which Rent Revision No. 252/83 was filed which was allowed by V.A.D.J., Kanpur on 21st February, 1983 and matter was remanded to R.C. and E.O. for reconsideration. The R.C. and E.O. after remand against rejected the release application on 27th February, 1984. Against the said order petitioner, filed Rent Revision No. 67/84 which has been dismissed by Ilnd A.D.J., Kanpur on 31st May, 1984 hence this writ petition. In respect of residential portion on the first floor of the building purchased by petitioner in November, 1980 she had already filed release application under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act, against the tenant of the said portions which had been allowed and revision against the said order had also been dismissed. These facts were mentioned in the release application in respect of shop situated on the ground floor (giving rise to the instant writ petition) It was further stated therein that the said tenant (of First Floor) had filed writ petition against orders passed against him by R.C. and E.O. and A.D.J. In Para 3 of this writ petition it has been stated that the said Writ Petition. No. 8919 of 1982, was dismissed on 14th May, 1984. Landlady, must have obtained possession of first floor residential accommodation in 1984 itself.
(2.) The landlady alleged that her husband needed the accommodation in dispute for establishing an office in connection with his business which was being married on at Kannauj. Revisional Court, in this regard, held that "I think such room could be made available in residential portion also". The landlady had also asserted that she was doing her own business and required accommodation in dispute for the said purpose. Regarding that also the Revisional Court held that it could be carried out from residential house. The accommodation in dispute is a shop. In my opinion, the approach of both the Courts below is erroneous in law. While deciding the release application under Section 16 (1) (b) liberal approach is required as neither interest of any sitting tenant is involved nor interest of prospective allottee can be looked into. This is not the policy of law to reject the release application of the landlady under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act for commercial accommodation on the ground that proposed business can be carried out from residential house also. Landlady is the best Judge of her need.
(3.) Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders are set aside. Release application filed by the landlady petitioner, stands allowed. Writ petition allowed.;