S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Murlidhar, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shrimati Rama Goel, learned counsel for respondents-landlords, who has appeared through caveat.
(2.) This is tenants' writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlords respondents against them on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (herein after referred to as the "Act"), in the form of P.A. Case No. 7 of 2001 on the file of Prescribed Authority, Mathura. The property in dispute is a shop rent of which is Rs. 10/- per month. It was purchased by the landlords respondents in December, 1994 and release application was filed in January, 2001. It was pleaded by the landlords that at the time of filing of release application landlord-respondent No. 1 was doing a private job on salary of Rs. 1000/- per month and he wanted to establish his son in the business. However, subsequently it was stated that during pendency of Release application due to some dispute between the landlord's father and his employer, landlord respondent No. 1 had to leave the said job. It was also stated that after the cessation of employment landlord respondent No. 1 was shutting daily in between Delhi and Mathura and bringing certain goods from Delhi and selling the same to different persons at Mathura. It was pointed out on behalf of the tenants that the landlord respondent No. 1 was participating in the family business of his father and brother. The courts below did not accept this contention. Release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 15.5.2006. Against the said judgment and order tenants petitioners filed P.A. Appeal No. 6 of 2006 A.D.J. Court No. 1 Mathura dismissed the appeal on 13.9.2007, hence this writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that bonafide need is to be proved by the landlord and in the instant case landlord completely failed to prove his bonafide need. However, the tenants could not point out that any job was being done by landlord respondent No. 1 or he was carrying on any regular, independent and separate business. This was sufficient to prove the bonafide need. Even if it is assumed that in the family business landlord respondent No. 1 was participating and having share therein, it will not make much difference. Supreme Court in Sushila v. A.D.J., AIR 2003 S.C. 780 has held that participation in family business does not negate the bonafide need a every landlord and every adult member of the family of the landlord is entitled to separate independent business.;