- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS is landlords' writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceed ings initiated by them against tenant respondent No. 2 Munna Lal 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. 5 of 1983. Prescribed Authority/munsif, Etah allowed the release application through judgment and order dated 21. 2. 1987. Against the said judgment and order tenant-respondent No. 2 filed Misc. Appeal No. 9 of 1987. A. D. J. , Etah allowed the appeal through judgment and order dated 30. 5. 1992, set aside the judgment and order of the prescribed authority and rejected the release application of the landlords petitioners, hence this writ petition. Property in dispute is a shop rent of which is Rs. 65/- per month. Landlords purchased the property on 16. 9. 1979. It was stated in the release ap plication that landlord applicant No. 1 Lal Bahadur was doing the business of goldsmith from his house and landlord applicant No. 2 Vijai Bahadur was not doing any business and was without any job. It was further stated that father of landlords was tenant in a shop from where he was carrying the business of gold smith. Landlord applicant No. 2, Vijai Bahadur was aged about 22 years and married at the time of filing release application. It was also stated that tenant was having a shop in Mandi, Jawaharganj, Jalesar. Lower Appellate Court held that Vijai Bahadur landlord applicant No. 2 was doing business of goldsmith from a shop in Jawaharganj, Jalesar which was owned by uncle (Tau) of Vijai Bahadur. Even though the said fact was denied by the landlords still the Lower Appellate Court on the basis of photographs found the said fact to be proved.
(3.) LOWER Appellate Court also held that mother of the landlords had purchased a big shop and thereafter converted the same into two shops and in one shop one of the landlords applicants, i. e. , Lal Bahadur was doing business hence the other landlord Vijai Bahadur could do business from other shop. Landlords asserted that the said shop was in possession of Ram Murty. LOWER Appellate Court also found that a house was available with the landlords on the ground floor from where Vijai Bahadur could do business. In respect of comparative hardship, Lower Appellate Court held that in the commercial accommodation owned by the tenant and his brothers, his brothers were doing business.;