Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The Appellate Court vide its impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.1997 held that the petitioner is living in joint family and as such involved himself in the joint family business. Sri A.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents, fairly submitted the position of the law is that every adult member of the family of the landlord has a right to do his independent business. He however, has vehemently urged that as one of the shop of the landlord had fallen under the tenancy of Ajjan, the barber, vacant and the petitioner could have open his own shop or business which was proposed by him in that shop. The question is still looming large as to whether the petitioner can start his independent business in shop in dispute which is suitable to him or if in the shop which according to the respondents has fallen vacant, undisputedly every adult member of the landlord family is entitled to do his own independent business. The finding recorded by the Appellate Court that since petitioner is in the joint family business, he does not acquire the shop in dispute to establish his own independent business which is not disputed by respondents -Counsel is not justified hence the order of the Appellate Court is quashed.
(2.) IN view of the aforesaid facts, subsequent of another shop falling vacant said to be suitable and available to the landlord for establishing his independent business, the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority. It shall re -consider the matter whether the shop which has fallen vacant caused by determination of the tenancy of Ajjan, the barbar, is suitable for establishing the business by the petitioner or not viz. a viz. and the shop in dispute under the tenancy of respondent No. 2 -Prahlad Kumar and respondent No. 3 Rajesh Kumar. The authority may also take into consideration the size of the location of the shop as the nature of the business in this regard. The Counsel for the petitioner states that rent paid is too low and meagre @ 150/ - per month which too they are not paying.
(3.) THIS matter may also be raised before the appellate authority for passing the appropriate orders in accordance with law.;