S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord-respondent No. 2 Trijugi Narain on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
(2.) Property in dispute consists of two shops, rent of which is only Rs. 12.50 per month. Release application was registered as Rent Case No. 209 of 1980. Prescribed Authority/Munsif Hawaii Kanpur rejected the release application on 19.11.1982 against which landlord respondent No. 2 filed Rent Appeal No. 7 of 1983. Appeal was allowed on 28.5.1992 by V A.D.J. Kanpur, hence this writ petition.
(3.) Landlord pleaded that he had three major sons, Satish Narain, Sri Narain and Sri Krishna Narain. It was further pleaded that landlord had one shop in his possession in which he was doing business of sell ball bearings. It was further stated that all his sons were having experience of the said business and they required separate shops for establishing their separate independent business. Release application was filed in the year 1980. After one year i.e. In the year 1981 another shop came in the possession of the landlord in which he settled his eldest son Satish Narain. Another shop in the tenancy occupation of another tenant had been released by Prescribed Authority in favour of the landlord, as observed by the lower Appellate Court. Tenant's appeal against the said release order was pending. One godown/shop was also allotted by some local authority of Kanpur to daughter in-law of the landlord. Landlord stated that his daughter in law was also doing independent business. In any case, the said shop which was allotted to the daughter in law was in an underground premises more suitable to be used as godown than a shop. The Lower Appellate Court after taking all these factors into consideration rightly held that the need of the landlord was quite bonafide as he required four shops in total - one for himself and three for his sons. No fault can be found with the said finding. The Prescribed Authority had unnecessarily laid great emphasis on the fact that the shop which came in possession of the landlord during pendency of the release application was not mentioned in the release application through amendment. The landlord during pendency of release application clearly admitted that one shop had become available to which was quite sufficient to satisfy his total need.;