S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenants' writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by Raman Lal original landlord, since deceased and survived by respondents 3 to 7 Banwari Lal and others. Release application was filed on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 90 of 1982 on the file of Prescribed Authority, Mathura. Property in dispute is a shop rent of which is Rs. 25/- per month. Landlord pleaded that he required the shop in dispute for one of his sons Banwari Lal (who is now respondent No. 3 in the writ petition). It was further pleaded that more than 15 years before filing of the release application Banwari Lal was as teacher. However, he left the job 15 years before and was not gainfully employed any where. Prescribed Authority through judgment and order dated 18.9.1984 dismissed the release application. Against the said judgment and order, landlord Raman Lal, filed Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1989. IIIrd A.D.J., Mathura through judgment and order dated 16.10.1989 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application of the landlord, hence this writ petition by the tenants.
(2.) The Prescribed Authority had held that there were material contradictions in the stand taken by the landlord in respect of cessation of employment of Banwari Lal. Prescribed Authority further held that it was not clear as to whether Banwari Lal voluntarily resigned or was removed from the post of teacher. This fact was wholly irrelevant. Appellate Court rightly held that only thing relevant was that Banwari Lal was not having either any employment or business. In my opinion, it was sheer wastage of time on the part of Prescribed Authority to decide as to whether Banwari Lal resigned or was removed from the post of teacher.
(3.) The Prescribed Authority held that the need of Banwari Lal was not bona fide as Munna, another son of original landlord, Raman Lal had a shop. This fact was also utterly irrelevant. Raman Lal, original landlord had four sons. He had full right to settle each and every son in independent separate business. Supreme Court in Shushila v. A.D.J., AIR 2003 SC 780 : 2003 (1) ARC 256, has held that no member of landlords family can be compelled to share the business with the landlord or any other family member. The business in the other shop was carried out by brother of Banwari Lal.;