Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord -respondent No. 3 Bhola Nath Gupta against petitioner and respondents 4 to 7, the tenants on the ground of bona fide need under section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 19 of 1990 on the file of the Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge, Rampur. The property in dispute is a big shop on the ground floor dimension of which are about 22' x 22' on the first floor also there is a big Hall, which is included in the tenancy of the tenants. In the release application landlord stated that his son Ram Kisan Gupta was employed in Rudrabilas Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Bilaspur, however, in 1989 it was detected that he was having heart trouble, hence it was very difficult for him to continue with the job with the Chini Mills as it required lot of travelling and other strain. It was pleased in the release application that landlord intended to establish his aforesaid son in the business from the shop in dispute, which would be less strenuous than his job with the Chini Mills. Both the Courts below found the need to be bona fide. The Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that the position and the area of the shop was such that part release would satisfy the need of the landlord and remaining part of the accommodation in dispute would be sufficient for the tenants. The Prescribed Authority, therefore, through judgment and order dated 12.9.1994 directed both the portions of the accommodation in dispute i.e. ground floor as well as first floor to be divided in two equal parts by raising a wall in between and one portion was released and the other portion was left in the tenancy occupation of the tenants. Against the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority, both the parties filed appeals being Rent Appeal No. 93 of 1994 by the tenant and Rent Appeal No. 102 of 1994 by the landlord. First Additional District Judge, Rampur through his judgment and order dated 19.9.1998 dismissed the appeal of the tenant and allowed that of the landlord. The lower Appellate Court held that the part release was not in the interest of any of the parties. However, lower Appellate Court did not give any cogent reason for differing with the Trial Court on the question of part release. One of the reasons given by the lower Appellate Court is that both the parties were not satisfied by the said partition. It is no reason. The further reason given by the lower Appellate Court is that partition of the shop will be a constant source of dispute between the two parties. This is also not a valid ground. Landlord stated that release of half of the accommodation will be inconvenient for the landlord and he will not be able to do his business conveniently. This argument was accepted by the lower Appellate Court. This is also not a valid ground to reject part release. It is not mere convenience which is relevant under section 21 of the Act. It is bona fide need, which is to be considered by the Courts. Learned Counsel for the tenant -petitioner very fairly offered that he was ready either to take half of both the portions or only one of the portions. Learned Counsel for the tenant stated that firstly his prayer was that ground floor might be permitted to be retained by the tenant, however, in the alternative if the Court did not consider that prayer to be appropriate, then he would be satisfied by release of the first floor only.
(2.) SO far as the finding of bona fide need recorded by both the Courts below is concerned, I do not find any fault with the same. However, I do not agree with the lower Appellate Court that it was not appropriate to release part of the accommodation. The Supreme Court in R.C. Kesharwani v. D. Prasad, 2002 (48) ALR 275, has held that even in case of commercial accommodation part release shall be considered by the Courts including High Court. The need set up by the landlord was for establishing his son in the retail business. In my opinion, if the entire ground floor portion, which is quite big i.e. 22' x 22' is released in favour of the landlord his need will be substantially satisfied.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , writ petition is allowed in part. Ground floor of the accommodation in dispute is released in favour of the landlord. First floor portion of the building in dispute is left in the tenancy of the tenants for which they must pay rent @ Rs. 400/ - per month with effect from October 2005 onward. Rent has been enhanced on the basis that, in my opinion, in exercise of extraordinary power while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of a building covered by Rent Control Act, the Writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent Vide Khursida v. A.D.J., 2004 (55) ALR 586. Rent of Rs. 20/ - is highly inadequate in comparison to the rent payable now a days. Writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. Judgments and orders passed by the Courts below are modified as above. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition Allowed.;