- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Rejoinder-affidavit filed, which is taken on record.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Original landlord Sri Bhagmal filed release application against ten ant-petitioner seeking release of the tenanted shop in dispute for bona fide need to settle his son Jitendra Kumar. Original landlord died during pendency of proceedings before prescribed authority and was substituted his widow re spondent No. 1. Release application was registered as P. A. Case No, 115 of 1997. Property in dispute is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 100/- per month. Shop in dispute is situate in Dholki Mohalla, Meerut Cant. Release application was allowed by Prescribed Authority/j. S. C. C. , Meerut on 31. 8. 2002. Against the said judgment and order, tenant-petitioner has filed Misc. Appeal No. 247 of 2002, which is pending before A. D. J. , Court No. 11. Meerut. In the appeal, tenant-petitioner filed an application for permission to adduce an affidavit as additional evidence. Copy of the said application un der Order XLI, Rule 27, C. P. C. and the affidavit filed therewith in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It was mainly stated in the affidavit that Jitendra Kumar, for whose need release was sought, had started doing business from shop No. 16 Subhash Nagar, Meerut Cant (Para 5 ). In Para 6 of the affidavit it was stated that the landlord of the said shop No. 16, Subhash Nagar, Meerut was Nanak Chand Trust and the Trust was not asking Jitendra Kumar to vacate the shop in his tenancy occupation. It was also stated that the said fact had come into existence after decision of the release application. Application was filed on 24. 4. 2007. Some photographs were also filed therewith. Apart from his own affidavit, tenant also field affidavits of three other persons to be ad mitted as additional evidence. The Lower Appellate Court through order dated 31. 1. 2008 rejected the application. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition. Lower Appellate Court held that similar affi davits were filed before the prescribed authority also and that "no person can be said to be gainfully carrying on his independent business by virtue of merely sitting in a shop which is being run by his brother. "
(3.) I do not find least error in the impugned order. Supreme Court in Sushila v. IInd Additional District Judge, Banda, 2003 (52) ALR 160 (SC)=2003 (9) AIC 156 (SC) has held that every adult family member of landlord is entitled to do independent separate business and no one can be compelled to share family business or the business carried on by his brothers. Even if assertion of the tenant that Jitendra Kumar is carrying on inde pendent business from a tenanted shop is accepted, it will not make any differ ence. Supreme Court in G. K. Devi v. Ghanshyam Das, AIR 2000 SC 656=2000 SCFBRC 5 has held that a ten anted shop available to the landlord or the member of the landlord's family for whose need release application is filed cannot be taken into consideration while deciding the bona fide need of the landlord.;