- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceeding initiated by him against tenant-respondent No. 2 District Co-operative Development Federation Limited, Saharanpur 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. 59 of 1980. Accommodation in dispute is a shop rent of which is Rs. 100/- per month. In the release application the need set up was for establishing the chamber of landlord's son, who was practicing on taxation aside. The shop is situate at Railway Road, Saharanpur. On the backside of the shop in dispute, at a short distance therefrom house of landlord is situate which is stated to be quite big. However, according to the learned Counsel for the landlord the passage from the main road i. e. Railway Road to the landlord's house is narrow and congested. Tenant has got another building in its tenancy occupation on the same road i. e. Railway Road on which accommodation in dispute is situate. However, according to the tenant the other building is situate on first or second floor and is used as residence by its employees. Tenant further asserted that in the accommodation in dispute it was having its retail out let. Prescribed Authority/iind Additional Munsif, Saharanpur allowed the release application on 1-1-1990. Against the said order tenant respondent No. 2 filed R. C. Appeal No. 919 of 1990. VI A. D. J. Saharanpur through judgment and order dated 6-5-1993 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 1-1-1990. THIS writ petition is directed against the aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Court. Earlier also release application on different grounds had been filed in the year 1977 which was rejected and appeal against the said order was also dismissed. The tenant mainly pleaded that landlord had several businesses in which he could accommodate his son and further he had several other properties to fulfill his alleged need. Initially tenant also denied that landlord's son was practicing as advocate at taxation side. However, later on the said stand was given up by the tenant.
(3.) SUPREME Court in Sushila v. A. D. J. , AIR 2006 SC 780 and A. Kumar v. Mushtaqeem, AIR 2003 SC 532, has held that no landlord or any adult member of his family can be compelled to participate in family business and every adult member of the landlord's family particularly male members have got right to establish independent business. Absolutely no fault can be found if the son of a businessman opts to practice as an Advocate. In respect of other properties the explanation of the landlord was that firstly, they were not in his exclusive ownership possession and he was only co-sharer in the said properties and secondly, the said properties were being used for other businesses by the landlord.;