S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent No. 3 Shyam Lai on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of Rent Case No. 198 of 1991 on the file of Prescribed Authority/A.C.M.M. VII, Kanpur Nagar. Property in dispute is commercial in nature. Landlord pleaded that he had retired from service and his second son Anil Kumar was unemployed and he required the accommodation in dispute to do transport business there from alongwith his son Anil Kumar. It was also stated that tenant was previously carrying on hotel business from the accommodation in dispute, however, he had closed the said business. Tenant pointed out that some other accommodation was available to the landlord and that immediately before filing of the release application one of the tenants of the landlord had vacated the premises in his occupation and the landlord had let out the same to another tenant, hence his need was not bonafide.
(2.) Prescribed Authority decided the question of bonafide need in favour of the landlord. Prescribed Authority held that landlord had no other accommodation available with him for starling the proposed business and that he had not inducted any new tenant immediately before filing of the release application. In respect of comparative hardship Prescribed Authority held that tenant failed to prove that he was carrying on transport business from the shop in dispute. Prescribed Authority also held that a truck owned by the tenant had been sold by him. Prescribed Authority also held that tenant did not make any effort to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application, hence balance of hardship tilted against him. This view is perfectly in consonance with the Supreme Court authority reported in B.C. Bhutanda v. G.R. Mundada, AIR 2003 SC 2713 : 2005 (2) ARC 899. Release application was therefore, allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 29.3.1995. Against the said judgment and order tenant-petitioner filed Rent Appeal No. 69 of 1995 A.D.J./Special Judge E.C. Act, Kanpur Nagar through judgment and order dated 20.12.1995 dismissed the appeal, hence this writ petition.
(3.) The main point argued by the tenant before the Courts below as well as this Court was that an adjoining building was initially let out to Dharamvir Chhabra, however, immediately after filing of the release application it was vacated by Dharamvir Chhabra and it had again been let out to S.K. Chhabra. Landlord asserted and the Courts below found that the said accommodation was since long in tenancy occupation of Dharamvir Chhabra and it appeared that S.K. Chhabra was also member of the family of Dharamvir Chhabra hence his name had been entered in the municipal records as tenant/occupant. Apart from municipal records no other evidence regarding change of tenancy was adduced by the tenant. Tenant hadalso asserted that in stead of filing release application against him landlord should have proceeded against the other tenant (Chhabra). This plea was not tenable as landlord had got complete liberty regarding choice of tenant against whom he wants to file the release application. Moreover, the Courts below have found that the accommodation in dispute is most suitable for the proposed business of the landlord. Landlord had also proved that he had purchased a truck. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the concurrent findings of bonafide need and comparative hardship recorded by the Courts below in favour of the landlord. Release application has rightly been allowed.;