S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) IT has been stated on behalf of Sri M.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the tenant -respondents that his clients are not responding. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. This is landlords' writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by them against tenants -respondents 2 and 3 Shiv Kumar and Suraj Bhan (Suraj Bhan, respondent No. 3 died during the pendency of the writ petition and was substituted by his legal representatives). Property in dispute is a shop. Release application under section 21 of UP. Act No. 13 of 1972 was registered as U.P.U.B. Case No. 122 of 1984. Prescribed Authority, Aligarh through judgment and order dated 20.2.1988 allowed the release application. Against the said judgment and order respondent Nos. 2 and 3/tenants filed U.P.U.B. Appeal No. 13 of 1988. VIIIth Additional District Judge, Aligarh through judgment and order dated 17.1.1991 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority and rejected the release application of the landlord, hence this writ petition by the landlord.
(2.) TENANTS are carrying on the business of Sarrafa (selling and manufacturing gold and silver ornaments). Landlord -petitioner No. 2 is the father and landlord -petitioner No. 1 is his son. In the release application it was stated that landlord -petitioner No. 2 Virendra Pal had several unemployed sons for whom he required the shop in dispute. Trial Court found the need of the landlord to be bona fide. It was stated in para 9 of the release application that Virendra Pal, petitioner No. 2 had five sons. Appellate Court found that one of the sons of Virendra Pal i.e. landlord -petitioner No. 1, Mahendra Pal was doing business of selling locks and hardware and another son was an Advocate. Lower Appellate Court held that on the first floor of the accommodation in dispute some accommodation was available to the landlord in which he could settle his other three sons in business. Normally, on first floors shops are not situated. Nothing was brought on record that in the area in question there was any shop on the first floor. It was also not brought on record by the tenant that first floor accommodation over the shop in dispute was ever used as shop.
(3.) TENANT got constructed several shops which were indicated by the Commissioner, who inspected the said shops. Tenant did not deny the existence of those shops. Tenant admitted that he had let out all those shops. In respect of those shops tenants pleaded that they were quite small and not fit for Sarrafa business. Prescribed Authority held that in case tenants were interested in bigger shop, they could convert any two shops belonging to them in one shop or at the initial stage they could have constructed one big shop for themselves. In the shops newly constructed by the tenants and let out by them to several persons, Chandra Shekhar and Bhatia and others were doing Sarrafa business. Prescribed authority rightly concluded that it is proved that the said shops were situated in an area which was quite suitable for sarrafa business. In regard to the shops constructed and let out by the tenants nothing has been said by the Appellate Court. Appellate Court has rather affirmed the said findings. Supreme Court in Shushila v. A.D.J. : 2003 (52) ALR 160 : 2003 (9) AIC 156 and A. Kumar v. Mustaquim : AIR 2003 SC 532, has held that every adult family member of the landlord is entitled to establish his independent separate business. In Sarla Ahuja v. United Insurance Company : AIR 1999 SC 100, it has been held that it is unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the laundered could have adjusted himself.;