J. C. Gupta, J. - (1.) This is tenant's petition.
(2.) An application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was moved by the landlady-respondent No. 2 for the release of the shop in question, which is admittedly in the tenancy of the petitioner. The need shown therein was that the disputed shop is bona fide required by her husband and her youngest son Raj Kumar for establishing some business therein as both of them were unemployed, the husband having left the service at Delhi and the son having completed his studies. She has no other vacant shop with her, whereas the tenant being a big business concern could procure any other shop in the city of Meerut and could shift their business, in case the application was not allowed, the landlady would suffer greater hardship than the tenant.
(3.) The release application was contested by the tenant-petitioner on a number of grounds. It was denied that the husband and son of the landlady were unemployed." It was asserted that the husband of the landlady was still working in Delhi and in any case he was unable to do any business because of his old age and physical incapacity. As regards the youngest son, Raj Kumar, the petitioner's case was that he was a partner in M/s. Annu Finance and was thus already engaged in business. M/s. Annu Finance is a family concern of the landlady and the family members were earning huge profits. It was further pleaded that if at all the husband and the son wished to set up a new business, they could do so in one of the rooms of their residential house. It was also alleged by the petitioner that the landlady did not require the shop in question but he merely wanted to sell the shop after getting it vacated. She herself had once offered It for sale to the petitioner in July, 1984 and it was also suggested that in case the petitioner was not Interested in the offer, it should increase the rent and when the tenant-petitioner expressed its inability to do either, the release application has been moved. The shop in question has been in the tenancy of the petitioner for the last about 34 years and the tenant has built up a goodwill. The landlady had with her three shops Including the disputed one and she sold out the other two shops which were adjacent to the disputed shop.;