SHISHIR KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri M.K. Gupta, assisted by Sri Parvez Alam, learned. Counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned Counsel for respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 25.8.2007 and 20.1.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge as well as the Prescribed Authority, (Annexures 8 and 5 to writ petition). The petitioners being tenant have filed this writ petition on the ground that the Courts below have not considered the offer made by the petitioners re­garding availability of various other shops and accommodations belonging to the respondent-landlord. The petitioners have been tenants of the disputed shops No. 2 to 5, Main Bazar, Fatehpur Sikri for the last 35 years. The land­lord-respondent filed an application under section 21 (1) (a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the said shop to establish his son Lokendra Singhal, who is unemployed. It was pleaded in the application that rent of shop is Rs. 500/-and tenancy of the shop is not prior to 1986. A written statement was filed denying allegations made in the application and it was specifically stated in the written statement that various other shops are available and the petition­ers are carrying on the business jointly in the shop in question and there are 25 members in the family. The learned lower Court after hearing both the parties and, after considering the comparative hardship and bona fide need allowed the application. The appeal filed by petitioners has also been dismissed.
(3.) SRI M. K. Gupta, learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that the hardship and bona fide need have not been considered by the authorities below because there are two shops available in the Jai Devi market and that were be­ing closed and if it is needed for his elder son, the same can be utilised. Further the Courts below have not considered that an offer was made by the petitioners that as the respondent was having various accommodations and one of the ac­commodations may be given to the petitioner for running his shop for the pur­pose of livelihood but the Courts below have not considered the same and have dismissed the claim of the petitioners holding therein that the need of the re­spondent is more genuine and bona fide. It was specifically mentioned that var­ious other shops and accommodations are available and therefore, in view of Rule 16 (2) (c) of the Rules, the prescribed authority should have considered the application in that light that in case, it was not suitable for the landlord for the purpose of business, that may serve the purpose of tenant, then in that case the landlord should let out that accommodation to the tenant on a fair rent to be fixed by the prescribed authority.;