S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) This is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against tenant-respondent No. 2 since deceased and survived by legal representatives. The release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 55 of 1985 on the file of Prescribed Authority, Jhansi who by judgment and order dated 12.5.1986 allowed the release application. Against the said judgment and order tenant-respondent No. 2 filed Rent Control Appeal No. 26 of 1986 - Nand Kishore v. Shikar Chandra. Additional District Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act) on 21.12.1990 allowed the appeal hence this writ petition by the landlord.
(2.) Appellate Court mainly took into consideration the fact that according to the affidavit filed by the tenant in appeal son of the landlord i.e., Mahendra Kumar for whose need release application was filed had joined some service with a private factory hence need stood satisfied. Learned Counsel for the landlord-petitioner argues that landlord was not provided proper opportunity to rebut the allegations made in the affidavit before the appellate Court by tenant as copy of the application and affidavit were not supplied to him. The other argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even if during the pendency of appeal son of the landlord joins some service with some private employer then this alone cannot be a ground to reject the release application. I need not decide the first question. However, as far as the second argument of the learned Counsel for the landlord is concerned it is bound to be accepted. It is neither expected nor required that the person from whose business need shop is sought to be released shall remain idle until final decision of the release application. Moreover in a private job any person may be thrown out of job at any time unless some Labour Law intervenes. Supreme Court in the following authorities has held that subsequent employment of the person for whose need shop is sought to be released or subsequent disadvantage to start of the particular business for which need was set up does not mitigate against the bona fides.
(3.) Lower Appellate Court also based its judgment on the fact that all the heirs of tenant who had died had not been impleaded. In view of Supreme Court authority reported in Harish Tandon v. Addl. District Magistrate, 1995 SCFBRC 123 : 1995 (1) ARC 221 and A.C. Juker v. K.P. Mantri, AIR 2001 SC 2251, all the heirs of the deceased tenant inherit the tenancy as joint tenants and orders passed against one of the joint tenants is binding upon the other joint tenants.;