Manoj Misra, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri W.H. Khan, assisted by Sri J.H. Khan, for the respondents and perused the record.
(2.) This is a tenants' petition against the release order dated 13.07.2016 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chitrakoot in Rent Case No.1 of 2012 by which the shop in dispute has been released in favour of the landlord-respondents. The petitioners have also assailed the order dated 08.02.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chitrakoot by which he has dismissed the appeal preferred against the order of the Prescribed Authority and has affirmed the order passed by the Prescribed Authority.
(3.) A perusal of the record would reveal that the landlord-respondents filed a release application, under Section 21(1)a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, in respect of a shop admeasuring 20" x 20". It was claimed that on death of the original owner/landlord of the shop, a family settlement had taken place between his heirs and legal representatives, as a result, the eastern half portion of the shop in dispute admeasuring 10" x 20" came to the share of the release applicant no.4 (Mahesh Kumar Jain respondent no.4 herein) and the western half portion admeasuring 10" x 20" came to the share of release applicant no.6 (Devesh Kumar Jain-respondent no.6 herein). It was claimed that the release applicant no.6 had an adjoining shop in which he was running business by the name of Shyam Motors and the requirement of the business could not be met with the accommodation which was in his possession, therefore, part of the accommodation in dispute, which came to the share of the release applicant no.6, was bona fide required for expanding the business of the release applicant no.6 so as to make it in conformity with the requirements of the automobile business. The release applicant no.4 set up the need for the eastern half portion of the shop by claiming that he does not have any settled employment and, therefore, the shop in question was required for his own employment. As regards comparative hardship, it was alleged that after the death of original tenant, namely, Balender Singh, from the shop in dispute, a hotel was not being run by the heirs and legal representatives of Balender Singh but by his brother Shiv Raj Singh and, therefore, in case the release application is allowed, the tenant will not suffer greater hardship than what the landlord would suffer in case of rejection of the release application. The petitioners contested the release proceedings by denying the family settlement between the heirs and legal representatives of the original owner/landlord and by claiming that the landlords were very wealthy having several properties and, therefore, they did not have any bona fide need for the accommodation in dispute. They also denied the running of the hotel by Shiv Raj Singh, the brother of the original tenant.;