S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) Head learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord Respondent No. 2 Satya Narain Bajpai against tenants, i.e., petitioner and performa Respondent No. 3, Manik Lal on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Property in dispute is a shop situate in Kanpur Nagar rent of which is Rs. 25/- per month. Need set up by the landlord was for setting his son in business of retail sale of general merchandise. Release application was registered as Rent Case No. 31 of 1985. Prescribed Authority/IVth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar dismissed the release application] on 29.11.1990. Against the said judgment and order, landlord respondent filed Rent Appeal No. 9 of 1991. Xllth A.D.J., Kanpur Nagar allowed the appeal through order dated 15.2.1992 and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority and allowed the release in favour of the landlord. Said order of the Appellate Court has been challenged by the tenant through this writ petition.
(3.) The Prescribed Authority had held that Kishore Kumar son of the landlord, for whole need release was filed, was employed as homeguard and was earning Rs. 15/- per day as remuneration, hence need was not bona fide. It was also held that no one in the family of the landlord had ever done business. Prescribed Authority also held that landlord was a professional pandit and his other son Ashok Kumar helped him in the said profession hence Kishore Kumar could also do that. Appellate Court rightly held that all these things was meaningless while deciding the release application. There is no such rule that if no one in the family has done business, then a particular person of that family cannot start business. Remuneration for the homeguard is so nominal that it is quite natural that a homeguard would like to switch over the profession, if he gets an opportunity.;