S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) THIS is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against tenant -respondent No. 3 Sukhram under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, U.P. Rent Regulation Act on the ground of bona fide need. Property in dispute is a shop. Release application was registered as Case No. 4 of 1976 on the file of Prescribed Authority/Additional Munsif, Hathras. Prescribed authority rejected the release application on 5.7.1985 against which landlord -petitioner filed appeal which was allowed on 21.2.1980. Against the said judgment of the Appellate Court Writ Petition No. 2273 of 1980 was filed in this Court which was allowed on 5.9.1983 and judgment of Lower Appellate Court/A.D.J., Aligarh dated 21.2.1980 was quashed and case was sent back to him to decide the appeal in the light of the observations made in the said judgment. In the said order High Court observed that Appellate Court has allowed the appeal for the need of Padam Nath Chaturvedi one of the sons of landlord who had since become Munsif Magistrate hence his need vanished as it was stated in the release application that shop in dispute was also required for establishing the Chamber of Padam Nath Chaturvedi who was Advocate at that time. This Court observed as follows: It will be necessary in the changed circumstances to consider whether Vyas Ji Chaturvedi would still be prepared to do Ghee business in the premises in dispute. After remand four affidavits were filed by the landlord two of himself and two of Vyas Ji Chaturvedi copies of which are Annexures -7 to 10 to this writ petition. IVth A.D.J. who heard the appeal after remand from this Court dismissed the appeal U.P.U.B. Appeal No. 42 of 1979 on 23.2.1985 hence this writ petition by landlord.
(2.) APPELLATE Court held that Vyas Ji Chaturvedi during pendency of the case had been employed as teacher in a school. Appellate Court further held that a shop bearing No. 337 was available to landlord to settle his son Vyas Ji Chaturvedi in business. The case of the landlord in respect thereof was that it was actually a room of the house in which landlord himself was carrying on the business of astrology (jyotish). The Appellate Court held that this activity could be carried out from any other portion of the house. The approach of the Appellate Court on both these counts is erroneous in law. If the son of landlord for want of proper accommodation to start business is employed with some private employer (Kameshwar Sanskrit Pathshala in the instant case), then it cannot be said that the need to start business for him is not bona fide. Until actual vacation of shop the person for whose need shop is sought to be released cannot be expected to sit idle. As far as shop/room No. 337 is concerned, landlord himself was carrying on the job of jyotish therefrom. It was also pointed out by the tenant that another shop bearing No. 334 was also available to the landlord. Landlord stated that the said shop was very small and was being used as godown. Lower Appellate Court taking a philanthropic view favourable to the tenant held that for the business of ghee big shop should not be required.
(3.) IT is not the prerogative of the tenant to advise the landlord that he should satisfy his need in the particular manner suggested by the tenant. Supreme Court in R. Kumar v. Firm P. Machinery : AIR 2000 SC 534 has held that "in the matter of suitability of premises to landlords requirement, landlord is the best judge and has complete freedom in the matter." It has been held by the Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja v. U.I. Insurance Company : AIR 1999 SC 100, that "it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite un -necessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself." (para -14);