S.U.KHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS is landlords' writ petition arising out eviction/ release proceedings initiated by them against tenants respondents on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No.8 of 1996. Prescribed Authority, Najibabad, district Bijnore through judgment and order dated 30.04.1998 allowed the Release Application. Against the said judgment and order tenants respondents filed P.A. Appeal no.11 of 1998. Vth, A.D.J. Bijnor through judgment and order dated 24.03.1999 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the Release Application of the landlords, hence, this writ petition by the landlord. Three sons of the landlords were engaged in business. However, two sons i.e. Chandra Shekher and Ghanshyam were neither having any business nor were employed anywhere, hence shop in dispute was stated to be required to settle them in business.
(3.) AS far as Chandra Shekher is concerned, during pendency of appeal copies of his income tax return were filed showing that he was drawing salary also. Chandra Shekher himself filed affidavit before lower appellate court dated 05.08.1998 (Annexure 25 to the writ petition). In para 2 of the said affidavit he admitted that in his income tax return for the year 1997-98, he had shown income from salary as Rs.32,000/-. It was not explained that what service he was doing. It is correct that if during pendency of release application landlord or his son joins some temporary service it does not mean that his need has come to an end. Any person may switch over his profession. However, even nature of profession or service was not indicated by Satish Chandra. He did not state that he wanted to give up the service and start business. Accordingly, findings of lower appellate Court that there existed no need for Satish Chandra are approved.;