S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for Subhash Chandra Gupta landlord respondent No. 2 in each of the writ petition. Landlord-respondent No. 2 S.C. Gupta filed release application on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 against Triloki Prasad, predecessor in interest of petitioners of second writ petition and Heera Lal, predecessor in interest of petitioners of first writ petition in the form of Misc. Case No. 176 of 1983 on the file of Prescribed Authority/Munsif (East), Ballia. There are three shops in a row, middle one is in occupation of the landlord and the other two in tenancy occupation of petitioners of both the petitions i.e. one each. Frontage of the shop in landlord's occupation is only about 3 feet and of other two shops about 4 feet and about 5 feet respectively. The depth of each shop is about 13 feet. Landlord stated that he required the two shops for extension of his shop. Prescribed Authority dismissed the release application through order dated 25.4.1986. Against the said judgment and order landlord-respondent field R.C. Appeal No. 7 of 1986. Appeal remained pending for 21 years and was ultimately allowed by Special Judge/Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Ballia on 7.8.2007. Learned Additional District Judge set aside the order of Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application in respect of both the shops. The said order of the appellate Court has been challenged through this writ petition by both the sets of tenants-petitioners.
(2.) There cannot be any doubt that the need of the landlord for extension of his shop is more than bonafide. A shop having a frontage of 3 feet can not even be described as gallery. One wonders how the landlord manages to do any business from the said shop.
(3.) The argument of learned Counsel for the tenants-petitioners that some other shop became available to the landlord which he let out is not of much value as landlord requires the two shops on both sides of his own shop for expansion of his own shop. Such purpose cannot be served by shops situate at some distance and not adjacent to the shop in which landlord is carrying on business.;