- (1.) J. C. Gupta, J. This is tenant's writ petition. Since counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged, with the consent of the parties' Counsel, the writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.
(2.) THE dispute relates to a shop situate at Bazar Kalan, Rampur. Un-disputedly the petitioner is a tenant in this shop since before the shop was purchased by respondent No. 3 on 8-2-1991. Alter having purchased the shop in question, the landlord respondent No. 3 served a notice on the petitioner on 22- 4-1991 informing him that he has purchased the shop for his personal use an also gave time to the petitioner to vacate the shop. On 23-2-1994, that is, on the expiry of three years period from the date of purchase, the respondent No. 3 moved an application under Section 21 (a) (b) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 with the allegations that the landlord has no other property from where he could carry on his business and since he was unemployed; and not engaged in any business or profession, the shop in ques tion was bona fidely required by him for his personal use. It was also alleged that shop in question was in a dilapidated condition and, therefore, the landlord required the same for his occupation after demolition and reconstruction for carrying on his business of General Merchandize. It was also alleged that the shop in question was kept under lock and the tenant petitioner was practically doing no business therein. THE defence of the tenant petitioner was that the landlord has already been doing business of general merchandize in a shop situate in Puranganj, Rampur. His father has a shop at Bazar Nasrullakhan, Rampur and the landlord is engaged in that business also with his father. THE tenant further alleged that he has been doing his business from the shop in ques tion and he has no other source of income to cater the need of his eight family mem bers. THE shop in question has been under tenancy of his father and before him his grandfather. THE landlord is a man of af fluent means and there were number of vacant shops available near the shop in question and if the landlord was in genuine and pressing need, he could have pur chased any one of them, instead of pur chasing the shop in dispute. The Prescribed Authority by the order dated 20-1-95 allowed the landlord's application for release holding that the landlord has a bona fide need for estab lishing himself in business in the shop in question and he has no other property to start the said business. On the question of comparison of hardship also, the Prescribed Authority recorded a finding in favour of the landlord. The appeal filed by the tenant petitioner has been dismissed by respondent No. 1 by the order dated 7-10-1997. The lower appellate Court af firmed the findings of fact recorded by the Prescribed Authority. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the tenant petitioner has come up before this Court in this writ petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through record.
(3.) BOTH the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact on both the questions of bona fide need and comparative hardship. These are essen tially findings of fact and are not to be ordinarily interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. While recording conclusion on the question of bona fide need of the landlord-respondent, both the Courts below have found that the landlord is unemployed and not engaged in any business repelling the tenant's contention that the landlord was already engaged in business in another shop at Puranganj, Rampur. The tenant's plea that the landlord is also engaged in business of cloth with his father has also been discarded. It has also been found that the landlord has no other accommodation available to him to establish his business. Similarly, on the question of comparative hardship, both the Courts below have weighted the respective hardships of the parties and it has been concluded that the landlord would suffer a granter hardship than that of the tenant in case the applica tion for release was rejected. While arriv ing at this finding the Courts below have also taken into consideration the fact of availability of a number of newly con structed vacant shops in the near vicinity of the disputed shops yet no attempt was made by the tenant to have any one of them. It was a relevant consideration and the finding is not vitiated on this account.;