SUNITA AGARWAL,J. - (1.) The contrary findings recorded by the Courts below of bona fide need of the applicants-landlord and comparative hardship of the parties are under challenge in the present petition on the ground that the applicants are subsequent landlords and they had failed to comply with the provisions of Ist proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act,1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) serving the requisite notice of six months prior to filing of the release application. Further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the previous landlord has taken Rs.40,000/- towards security money from the petitioner which was to be adjusted in the rent to be deposited by the tenant. The petitioners were continuously making payment of the rent and, therefore, there was no occasion for the Court below to release the shop in question. Lastly, it is submitted that the landlords have failed to prove their need to the shop in question much less bona fide need. The comparative hardship lies in favour of the petitioners who have no other source of income except the shop in question.
(2.) On the other hand, Sri Udayan Nandan learned counsel appearing for respondent-landlords submits that the requisite notice of six months as required under Ist proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 21 of the Act was served upon the petitioners-tenants on 16.8.2007, specific averments in this regard have been made in Paragraph 13 of the release application which has not been denied in the written statement filed by the tenants. So far as the payment of security to the landlord is concerned to applicant-landlord, it is open for the tenant to recover the money in accordance with law.
(3.) So far as the findings on comparative hardship is concerned, it is contended that the respondents-landlords filed their affidavits before the prescribed authority in the shape of evidence. It was categorically stated therein that there exists only one shop with three applicants-landlords in which one applicant namely Sri Swami Nath is doing his business. So far as Girdhari Lal and Srinath are concerned, they have no other shop for their business.;