- (1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. Kanpur Commodity Exchange Limited previously know as Oil and Oil Seeds Exchange, a registered company having its office at 51/97 New 51/56-A, Collectorganj, Kanpur has filed this writ petition through Sri G. P. Trivedi. The petitioner is tenant of the accommodation owned by contesting respondents No. 3 to 6. An application for release under Section 21 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was moved by the learned counsel for the landlord of the shop in question for setting up respondent No. 6, Sri Arun Kumar, in business of ghee. In the said shop the petitioner had been doing business under the supervision and control of Forward Markets Commission as an institution of the Government of India situate at 100, Marine Drive, Bombay under the provisions of Forward Contract (Regulation) Act, 1952. The petitioner's concern is mainly aimed for regulating the prices of certain commodities from time td time. The ban was admittedly imposed by the Government on the said business of Forward Trading which still exists. It has been stated by the petitioner that at present he has been given licence for trading in gur which also regulates and control the trading of gur at Kanpur market. The respondent has filed sketch map of the shop in question which is a sufficiently big hall. The site plan of the map is annexure C-A 3. The entire premises consist of hall both sides of the said main hall are number of godowns and one office room. Tenancy of the petitioner is for the hall and one office room towards the rear end. The godowns are in tenancy of other tenants. The respondents pleaded that the shop which is in shape of hall was bonafide required for conducting business by landlord's son. The landlord pleaded that his need was pressing, genuine and bonafide. The respondents also pleaded that the business conducted by the petitioner was banned by the Government and the petitioner has permitted other unauthorised person to occupy the hall in question for carrying on their business.
(2.) THE Prescribed Authority after considering evidence on record and hearing held that the need of the landlord for release was bonafide and genuine. After recording such a finding, the Prescribed Authority instead of releasing the shop (room) in question released the rear office room and godowns towards the extreme interior portion which is clear from Annexure CA-3. THE godown as shown is the godown of Kanpur Oil and Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd. and the room shown is of the Kanpur Broker Association Ltd. THE release application of the landlord was thus partly allowed by the Prescribed Authority. THE petitioner and the respondent-landlord both were aggrieved by the judgment of the Prescribed Authority. THEy filed two appeals separately before the District Judge. Both the appeals were heard together by the XII Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and were decided by a common judgment (Annexure 5 to the writ petition ). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the landlord is a very rich person of the city who owned number of buildings and also carry on number of businesses in the city. The need of building for setting up the son of the landlord was neither genuine nor bonafide. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding about bona fide need of the landlord arrived at by the Prescribed Authority was wholly perverse and no reasonable person would arrive at such a conclusion. He also submit ted that for carrying the business, accommodation in the building, released by the Prescribed Authority in favour of the landlord was sufficient and there is no further necessity of releasing the hall in question under the tenancy of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed the entire judgment of the lower appellate court. I have carefully examined the same and have also perused the annexure placed by the learned counsel. The lower appellate court found as a fact that the landlord's son, opposite party No. 6, was a young man aged about 20 years who was not good in study. He wanted to start business. It is also not disputed that the time hearing of the appeals-respondent No. 6 was a student of Class XII. The submission of the petitioner's counsel that the landlord has number of other businesses in which the respondent No. 6 could have been absorbed and there was no necessity for him for starting a fresh business. The lower appel late court relying on the settled law that a young man in the family who is unemployed intends to start the business in his own accommodations in tenancy of others, he has a legal right to start such a business and get the tenant vacated. It would not be proper nor is the intention of law to deprive the owner of the building from the user of the same for starting a business for settling up a young unemployed youth in the family. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the courts below were not legally, correct, and the finding arrived at by them was perverse is not correct. I am of the view that both the courts below concurrently arrived at the conclusion, that the landlord needs the shop in question for settling the respondent No. 6 for doing business of Ghee. It is also not disputed that according to the finding respondent No. 6 is not engaged or employed in any manner. The courts below arrived at the said conclusion relying on the decision of 1980 ARC 479 - M/s. Ravi Chand Khemchand Jain v. Prescribed Authority and others, 1980 UPSC 41 ; N. S. Datta and others v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad and others, 1982 ARC 355. Learned counsel for the peti tioner has not cited any other authority to show a contrary view as expressed in the above decisions.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner placed the relevant submissions advanced before the courts below itself that there are other business and residential building belonging to the family of landlord and the question of release of the accommodation does not arise. The courts below considered the said arguments in details in the judgment itself and finding recorded shows that the submissions about the availability of other accommodations with the landlord was not correct. The learned counsel for the respondent, Sri S. K. Mehrotra, pointed out that the Nasiruddin v. 1st Addl. District Judge, Meerut and others, petitioner's business have been stopped. It has been observed in the judgment of the courts below that the Forward Contract business has been banned and the petitioner is not engaged in the said business. At present it is said that he bas been permitted to run Gur business and Gur market in the district. It has been pointed out by Sri S. K. Mehrotra that the petitioner has permitted other person to conduct business in the hall in question which is wholly illegal and amounts to sub-letting. Without entering into details of the said shop as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner permitted other persons to sit and negotiate big transation of sale and purchase of Gur, does not amount to sub-letting. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the hall in ques tion is big accommodation and a portion of the same would have been released in favour of the landlord to enable the landlord's son to carry on business. He placed reliance on Rule 16 of the Rules framed under U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It is pleaded that such a business can be permitted to be argued for the first time in writ petition. In the grounds of writ petition there is no such plea that Rule 16 was not applied by the courts below while deciding the release application. Perusal of Rule 16 shows that the provisions are mainly for residential accommodation and not for business accommoda tion. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision 1981 ARC 229 - M/s. Shankar Das Durga Prasad v. IV Additional District Judge, Meerut and others, which is also in respect of residential accommodation and not for a business accommodation.;