J.C.Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard petitioner's counsel Sri S. H. Siddiqui and Sri M. K. Gupta counsel appearing for the contesting res pendents-land lords.
(2.) This is tenant's writ petition. The dispute relates to a shop situate at Shri Ganj near City Post Office, Aligarh. In which the petitioner is undtsputedly a tenant for the last more than thirty years and according to him he is running a Tailoring business therein. Landlord Manohar Lal Jain filed application for the release of the said shop under Section 16 (!) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 thereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on the ground that the same is bona fide required for himself and his grandson Sudhanshu Jain. It was stated therein that Sudhanshu Jain has become major and after completing his education was sitting idle and unemployed and he was to be set up in business so that he could be married and lead his own life independently. It was also stated that the landlord has no other vacant shop to settle his son therein. The said son wanted to start the business of readymade garments in the disputed shop. The landlord further alleged that the tenant is practically carrying no business in the shop in question and keeps the same closed for most of the time. Therefore, even on comparison of hardship, the landlord would suffer greater than of the tenant. The release application was contested by the tenant-petitioner on a number of grounds. The petitioner came with the case that the landlord's son was not sitting idle as he is already engaged in business in a big air-conditioned ready-made garments shop along with the other family members and the said business is a joint family business, therefore, there was no need of Sudhanshu Jain and the main object of the landlord was to any how evict the petitioner so that the shop could be sold at a handsome price.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly contended that undisputedly Manohar Lal Jain died during the pendency of proceedings and therefore, with his death his alleged need extinguished, but this fact has not been taken into consideration by the Courts below inasmuch as in the release application, the landlord came with the case that the shop in question was required jointly for himself and his grand-son Sudhanshu Jain and. therefore, on account of the death of Manohar Lal Jain, the alleged need has lessened. A perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate court shows that the Court was fully aware and conscious of the fact of the death of Manohar Lal Jain and the Court proceeded only to consider the need of the grand-son Sudhanshu Jain. On examination of evidence and material on record, the need of Sudhanshu Jain has been found to be bona fide. It has been held by the Courts below that Sudhanshu Jain was not engaged in any business. Simply because Manohar Lal Jain had died, it could not be said that the need of Sudhanshu Jain was reduced by half. The case of Manohar Lal Jain was that the shop in question was required for doing business of ready-made garments both by himself and his grand-son. The mere fact that he himself expired would not lead to an Inference that the need of Sudhanshu Jain for whole of the shop was not liable to consideration.;