Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) SRI Prem Kishore Agrawal, respondent No. 3 who died during pendency of writ petition was admittedly tenant of following accommodation in premises No. 15/286, Civil Lines Kanpur: (a) two shops admeasuring 12' x 10' and 12' x 14'. (b) one big hall admeasuring about 25' x 25' on the ground floor. Further there is one 'Ducchatti' admeasuring about 12 x 20' on the mazza -mine floor. The petitioner is co -owner and landlord of the aforesaid premises No. 15/286 Civil Lines, Kanpur Nagar, filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the tenant -respondent No. 3 for release of aforesaid tenanted accommodation on the ground that his wife Smt. Prema Malaviya is carrying on business of manufacturing and processing of conduct pipe and its accessories in the name of Kishore Trading Corporation under the proprietorship in a small shop measuring 6 feet x 9 feet and small open space on the ground floor of the said premises. The family of the landlord consists of seven members which includes two adult sons, namely Naveen and Nitin. It was further stated that in the disputed accommodation, after release Naveen would start business of electrical goods and Nitin would start business of stationery. The accommodation in question was sought for the need of landlord's wife and two sons. The said release application was contested by respondent No. 3 on a number of pleas but was allowed in part by the prescribed authority vide order dated 4th December, 1997 passed in R.C. No. 88 of 94, released one shop out of two shops as described in the Commissioner's report, paper No. 59, whereunder the released portion has been shown as room No. 1 along with Duchhatti. Against the said order both the landlord and tenant filed rent Appeal Nos. 5 of 1998 and 8 of 1998. Both these appeals were heard together and have been decided by a common judgment, merged in the present writ petition. The rent Appeal No. 8 of 1998 filed by the tenant was dismissed but Rent Appeal No. 5 of 1998 filed by the present petitioner was allowed partly and two shops instead of one were released described as room Nos. 1 and 2 in the Commissioner's report in the aforestated judgment dated 26th February, 1999.
(2.) SRI S.D. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/landlord stated in the Bar that against the aforesaid judgment the tenant/respondent No. 3 had filed Writ Petition No. 14489 of 1999, which has been dismissed as abated on 31st January, 2005 and the order dismissing the appeal filed by the tenant has attained finality. In the present writ petition filed by the landlord none - appeared in spite of notice and service of the writ petition and service of notice has been held sufficient vide order dated 21st March, 2005, recorded in the order sheet. The service was effected by substituted service by publication in daily newspaper "AAJ published from Kanpur dated 14th February, 2005. Heard Sri S.D. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the Appellate Court committed illegality in not allowing the release application in toto and leaving the hall in the back of two shops with the tenant. Elaborating the argument, with the help of the map filed as Annexure -1 to the writ petition, it was submitted that by providing a passage to the said hall through the shop released by the appellate authority, the released accommodation has lost his efficacy and has become useless and the need of the landlord is still bonafide. Elaborating the argument he submitted that from the topography of the disputed premises it is desirable that the entire accommodation should be released. Moreover, when the said accommodation is not being used by the tenant and is lying closed for the last so many years. The tenant/respondent having failed to take any steps to get alternative suitable accommodation, the tenant cannot be permitted to raise the plea that he would suffer greater hardship if he is evicted from the tenanted accommodation.
(3.) ON the question of bonafide need the prescribed authority as well as the Appellate Court have found that there is no material on record to show that the sons of the landlord are doing any business or otherwise gainfully employed or engaged. The landlord being father is under obligation to establish his two sons in some business so that they can earn their livelihood. The tenant has also failed to produce any evidence in this regard to contradict the version of the landlord. The contention of the tenant/respondent that as a matter of fact the wife of the landlord is not doing business but his two sons are doing business was not accepted to be correct by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has concurred with the finding of the prescribed authority that the need of the landlord is bonafide and genuine. It has been further found that the need of the landlord is in respect of two shops to establish his two sons, is bonafide and genuine. These findings are well considered and are based on relevant considerations.;