RAKESH SHARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Ritu Raj Awasthi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.S. Sahai, holding brief of Sri Deepak Seth, learned Counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) . Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner an old widow lady has assailed the order of the Courts below whereby her application for release of the shop for settlement of her unemployed son has been rejected by the pre­scribed authority as well as appellate authority. It appears that the petitioner-landlord moved an application for re­lease of the rented premises situate at No. 10 Faizabad Road, Daliganj, P.S. Hasanganj, Lucknow, which is occupied by the opposite party-Dr. Awadhesh Narain, who is running a medical clinic there. The petitioner is an old widow lady and she has three sons. Out of her three sons (Mohd. Arif Khan, Mohd. Yunus Khan and Mohd. Aris Khan) one son, namely, Mohd. Yunus Khan has settled himself in a portion of shop, which is in possession of his brother Mohd. Arif Khan and he had opened his studio there but the youngest son Mohd. Aris Khan was still jobless and he intends to start his business in the premises in question. The said release application moved by the petitioner was opposed by opposite party-Dr. Awadhesh Narain by saying that the petitioner had got three other shops, one of which was in the tenancy of Nanak Ram, which has been let out to Ramesh, after the death of Nanak Ram in 1980; second shop, which was rented to Annamal has also been given to Ramesh in the year 1979 where he is doing the Chat business; and third shop, petitioner's two sons are doing the business of watch repairing and photography, while the youngest son Mohd. Arif is engaged in a watch repair shop in Nishatganj. The prescribed authority after considering material on records rejected the petitioner's appli­cation by the order dated 19.12.1987, holding that the premises was not bonafidely required for running the Hotel business of her son Mohd. Aris, besides the tenant is a reputed and established Doctor, who will suffer great hardship in case he is asked to vacate the premises. Being aggrieved, the petitioner pre­ferred an appeal and the appellate authority, vide order dated 14.10.1993, re­versed the findings recorded by the prescribed authority but dismissed the ap­peal by holding that though the need of the landlady is genuine, it cannot be released as the tenant will suffer greater hardship. Being aggrieved, the peti­tioner preferred the instant writ petition inter alia on the grounds that the pe­titioner's son Mohd. Aris being totally jobless and as such, the Court below erred in law in recording its findings that the petitioner will suffer no hard­ship while making the comparative hardship between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 1.
(3.) I have gone through the judgment rendered by the prescribed authority as well as appellate authority. The appellate authority has failed to see the relevant provisions of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 and the Rules made thereunder. Right from Apex Court to this Court, the law is settled that on submission of a release application, the tenant must look for alternative accommoda­tion/residential premises. Even as per the latest rent laws, the goodwill of a shop keeper or businessman would not play any dominant role because the good­will is like fragrance, which can travel any where, like flower's scent and the customers will go to the new location. This Court has dealt with this issue in Writ Petition No. 21 of 1999 (R/C). Bata Shoe Company and another v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Faizabad and others, which, as per learned Counsel for the petitioner, has been decided by the Apex Court.;