S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) This is landlords writ petition arising out eviction/release proceedings initiated by them against respondent No. 2 Nasir Ahmad, on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 36 of 1988 on the file Prescribed Authority/Munsif City, Farrukhabad. Property in dispute is shop rent of which is Rs. 35/- per month. Landlord pleaded that he was doing business of selling general merchandise from a shop and he intended to settle his son in business from the shop in dispute. It was further pleaded that son of the landlord had purchased a truck and he intended to establish transport office in the shop in dispute. Tenant pleaded that the son of the landlord was helping his father in his business as father was quite old, hence practically the son was carrying on the said business. Sanjai son of landlord petitioner No. 1 Rajaram for whose need release application was filed, was himself applicant No. 2 in the release application. He is petitioner No. 2 in this writ petition. Prescribed Authority found the need of the landlord to be bonafide. In respect of comparative hardship tenant had pleaded that he was doing tailoring job from the shop in dispute and he had developed goodwill. However, tenant did not show that what efforts he made to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application. In view of the Supreme Court authority reported in B.C. Bhutada v. G.R. Mundada, AIR 2003 SC 2713 : 2005 (2) ARC 899. This was sufficient to tilt the balance of comparative hardship against the tenant.
(2.) Prescribed Authority through judgment and order dated 16.11.1990 allowed the release application. Against the said judgment and order tenant filed R.C. Appeal No. 59 of 1990. IInd Additional District Judge, Farrukhabad through judgment and order dated 11.7.1991 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the release application of the landlord, hence this writ petition.
(3.) Appellate Court mainly allowed the appeal on the ground that father and son i.e., petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were jointly doing business from the adjoining shop. This view of the Appellate Court is patently erroneous in law. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Shushila v. A.D.J., AIR 2003 SC 780 : 2003 SCFBRC 109 : 2003 (1) ARC 256 and A. Kumar v. Mustaquim, AIR 2003 SC 532 : 2003 SCFBRC 137, that no landlord can be compelled to do joint business with his father, brother or other family member. Every landlord and every adult member of the landlord's family is entitled to start independent business. Appellate Court also held that the area in which the shop in dispute was situate was not suitable for establishing transport office. If landlord has got no other shop situated in an area which is suitable for transport business, he has got no option except to start the said business from the only shop, which may be available to him. Suitability is to be decided by the landlord.;