S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenants writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord-respondent Gopi Kishan Gupta on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, in the form of Rent Case No. 53 of 1987 on the file of Prescribed Authority/7th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar Release application was rejected on 2.8.1991. Against the said judgment and order Gopi Kishan Gupta filed Rent Appeal No. 172 of 1991. 12th A.D J., Kanpur Nagar through judgment and order dated 24.3.1993 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. Release application was filed only by Gopi Kishan Gupta, respondent No. 3 impleading respondent No. 4 Satish Kumar Gupta as proforma opposite party therein.
(2.) Property in dispute is a shop. It was stated in the release application that landlord Gopi Kishan Gupta required the shop in dispute for doing business as he was having no shop. It was also stated that initially Chhotelal was the tenant in the shop in dispute who had died and contesting opposite parties original petitioners had become tenants of the shop in dispute. It was also stated that tenants were having another shop at Meston Road, Kanpur. Tenants pleaded that wife of the landlord was doing business from another shop in the name of M/s. Anurag Electricals and the said business as actually being run by landlord Gopi Kishan hence he did not have any bona fide need. Appellate Court held that husband and wife both were entitled to have separate business. Appellate Court did not agree with the view of the Prescribed Authority that in India generally ladies do not do business and only their names are often used. In any case, gravity of need lies in the realm of comparative hardship as held by the Supreme Court in Siddalingama v. M. Shenoy, AIR 2001 SC 2896 : 2002 SCFBRC 17. Tenants have got another shop at Meston Road, hence their hardship in case of eviction would be almost nil. Even though bona fide need and comparative hardship are different concepts but to some extent they over-lap each other. If the tenant has got suitable alternative accommodation, need of the landlord is to be construed liberally as provided under Rule 16(2)(b) of the Rules framed under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Petitioner No. 1 Dr. Inderjit Singh has died and has been substituted by his heirs. Petitioner No. 2 has also died and has been substituted by his heirs. Petitioner No. 3 Dr. Biren Singh has filed a supplementary affidavit in February, 2006 stating therein that there has been a family partition in the family of the tenants and shop in dispute has fallen in the share of petitioner No. 3 since 1998 and he alone is doing business there from. Tenants cannot partition the tenanted property. After the death of the original tenant, all his heirs become joint tenant in case of commercial building. The other shop at Meston Road is available to all the heirs of original tenant Chhotelal as he had acquired the said shop. In the said supplementary affidavit it has also been stated that in the adjoining shop in which initially the landlord was doing business, almost no business was being conducted A photograph to prove the said fact has also been filed. However, there is nothing in the photograph which may connect it with the said shop or it may show that no business is being carried out from the said shop.
(3.) Accordingly, I do not find any error in the findings of bona fide need and comparative hardship recorded by the Appellate Court in favour of the landlord.;