ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) THESE three writ petitions since raise common question of facts and law, therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, they are being heard and decided together by common judgment.
(2.) THESE three petitioners-tenants, by means of present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have challenged the order dated 13th August, 2002, passed by the prescribed authority under Section 21 (i)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (In short 'the Act' and the order dated 24th December, 2002, passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of Section 22 of 'the Act', whereby the appellate authority have dismissed all the three appeals preferred by the petitioners-tenant against the order passed by the prescribed authority by which the release applications under Section 21 (1)(a) of 'the Act' against the three tenants have been allowed by the prescribed authority, copies whereof are annexed as Annexure Nos. '7' and '8', respectively, to the writ petition. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 3, namely, Rajendra Prasad Sharma is the landlord of the three shops in dispute situated in the building in dispute, which are under the tenancy of these three petitioners. It is also not in dispute that on the first floor, accommodation is in possession of the landlord for its residential requirement. The landlord filed a combined application under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act, against all the three tenants for release of these three shops in favour of the landlord for the bona fide requirement of the landlord who's family consists of landlord himself, his wife and two sons aged about 16 and 18 years, respectively as well as father of the landlord Laxmi Narain Sharma It is further asserted in the release application that the aforesaid accommodation was purchased by the landlord for its personal use. The landlord is a practicing lawyer and have put in twenty five years practice in criminal side and has set up his office in a very small store room and that he does not possess any place where he can consult with his clients and also there is no place for library. The landlord also does not have any drawing room and in the absence of any place, he is parking his car on road side and that is why the landlord requested the tenants to vacate the accommodation in their possession, but they have not vacated the same, thus these release applications. The landlord further asserted that the tenants are running very small business and in fact they do not require the shops in dispute.
(3.) THE petitioners-tenants contested the aforesaid release application filed by the landlord and denied the allegations made therein. The petitioners-tenants asserted that the business which they are carrying on in the respective shops in dispute is only source of their livelihood, therefore, from the facts stated in their reply, it is apparent that the landlord does not require the shops in dispute what to say for bona fide requirement. The prescribed authority on the basis of the materials on record arrived at the conclusion that the need of the landlord is bona fide and further that the tilt of the comparative hardship is also in favour of the landlord. Thus, the prescribed authority vide order dated 13th August, 2002 allowed the release application filed by the landlord and directed release of the shops in dispute in favour of the landlord.;