- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard Sri S. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rahul Jain, learned Counsel for landlord who has appeared through caveat.
(2.) THIS is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord- respondent on the ground of bonafide 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. 13 of 1995. Prescribed Authority/a. C. J. M. Court No. 3, Allahabad allowed the release application through judgment and order dated 31. 3. 2003. Against the said judgment and order tenant-petitioner filed R. C. Appeal No. 21 of 2003 which has been dismissed on 7. 5. 2008 by A. D. J. Court No. 14, Allahabad hence this writ petition. Property in dispute is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 100/- per month. Landlord stated that he was not doing any service or job and he wanted to start a business of General Merchandise from the shop in dispute. Both the Courts be low found that landlord was not doing any job or service. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued only two points. One is that earlier a shop in tenancy occupation of one Radha Devi was got vacated, hence landlord could do busi ness in the said shop. The Courts below held that the said shop was got va cated through release application filed on the ground of bona fide need for res idential accommodation. Landlord-respondent and his two married brothers are having grown up children so need for additional residential accommodation was set up which was found proved. The other argument is that there was an other shop in tenancy occupation of one Jalil which was also got vacated through release application under section 21 of the Act. In the said release ap plication it was stated that Subodh Kumar Jain, brother of landlord-respondent needed the said shop for expansion of his business. Said need was found proved and shop was released. Accordingly the other two shops which were initially in occupation of Radha Devi and Jalil were got vacated through release applications for spe cific purposes. The Courts below found that those two shops were being used for the purposes for which they were got vacated.
(3.) IN respect of comparative hardships the Courts below held that the tenant did not make any effort to search alternative accommodation and that tenant was admittedly doing only cutting job on freelance basis. Tenant's case was that several other tailors gave him the clothes for cutting and he returned them after doing the needful. The Courts below held that such job could be done even at the residence of the tenant. In any case tenant did not show that he made any effort to search al ternative accommodation.;