ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who is tenant of the accommodation in question, by means of present writ peti­tion under Article 226 of the Constitu­tion of India, has challenged the order passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short the Act) dated 20th December, 2005, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant has been dismissed by the appellate authority against the order of the prescribed authority dated 6th November, 2000 by which the prescribed authority under the Act has allowed the release applica­tion filed by the respondent-landlord, copies whereof are annexed as An-nexure Nos. '9' and '4', respectively to the writ petition.
(2.) THE brief facts of the present case are that admittedly Pradeep Rastogi was the landlord and after his death, his wife Smt. Sushma Rastogi, the respondent No. 3 in this petition and her two minor children becomes the owner and landlord of the accommoda­tion in question, which is a shop, in which Nabi Ahmad was the tenant and after his death, the petitioner and his brother Rafiq Ahmad inherited the tenancy and became tenant. The landlord filed an application under Sec­tion 21 (1)(a) of the Act before the prescribed authority on the ground that the landlord bona fide requires the ac­commodation in question for her per­sonal requirement. It is further asserted that landlord is owner of shop No. 8, situated at Baburam Market, Badaun in which earlier Nabi Ahmad was the tenant and after his death, the petitioner and his brother Rafiq Ahmad became the tenant. Nabi Ahmad was paying rent at the raje of Rs. 30 per month to Pradeep Rastogi up to 31st May, 1985, but after his death, present petitioner did not pay any rent and is depositing the same in the Court, It is, further asserted that after death of Pradeep Ras­togi, who was doing the work of Goldsmith, on 9th August, 1997, she is getting Rs. 1, 000 as rent and except this, there is no other source of livelihood. The landlord further asserted that petitioner is a barber who often goes out of the shop at the residence of the people and the shop in question remains closed. She, therefore, prayed that since she has no other source of livelihood, therefore, the shop in ques­tion may be released in her favour in which she will do business of goldsmith to augment her income and to look after her children's future and she will not let out the same to any other person. This application was opposed by petitioner by filing the written state­ment, wherein he accepted that earlier his father Nabi Ahmad was tenant of Siddha Gopal and was paying the rent to him, who was father-in-law of the ap­plicant and after his death he and his brother Rafiq Ahmad became the tenant, but in the year 1991-92 Rafiq Ahmad died and since then he is in oc­cupation of the accommodation in dis­pute. It is further asserted by petitioner-tenant that Siddha Gopal had four sons, but Pradeep Rastogi used to receive the rent of the shops and when Pradeep Rastogi refused to accept the rent which he had sent through Money Order, he and his brother Rafiq Ahmad instituted a case being Misc. Case No. 94 of 1986 and start to deposit the same under Section 30 (1) of the Act in the Court. It is contended that landlord and at least 20 shops in said Babu Ram market, whereas the petitioner has six members in his family and if the landlord wants to start Goldsmith busi­ness she can easily do this in her house. The petitioner further contended that actually landlord has no need of the accommodation in question, she wants to let out the same on higher rent to someone else, therefore, the need of the landlord is neither bona fide, nor genuine, fn rebuttal, the respondent contended that after the death of Sid­dha Gopal, in an internal arrangement the property was partitioned and the ac­commodation in question came in the share of Pradeep Rastogi and since she has taken diploma in Beautician course, therefore, if the same is released in her favour, she will do the business of artifi­cial jewellery and also business of beauty parlour as the shop in dispute is situated at Civil Lines.
(3.) THE prescribed authority on the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record have arrived at the con­clusion that it is admitted fact that the petitioner is doing barber job in the shop in question and he often used to go out at the residence of customers. The prescribed authority further found that on the basis of the Misc. case in­stituted by petitioner and his brother Rafiq Ahmad under Section 30 (1) of 'the Act', it is estiblished that Pradeep Rastogi was landlord and earlier the rent was being paid by the petitioner to Pradeep Rastogi and further after family partition, the shop in question came in his share. On the question of bona fide requirement, the prescribed authority have recorded finding that the need of the landlord is bona fide as after the death of husband of landlord, she has no source of income, except the rent, which is so meager and less that it is sufficient for any one to survive looking to the fact that landlord has two children. So far as the tilt of the com­parative hardship is concerned, the prescribed authority recorded finding in favour of the landlord and allowed the release application filed by the landlords vide order dated 6th Novem­ber, 2000 and directed the petitioner-tenant to vacate the accommodation in question.;