MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. - (1.) The instant petition is directed against the concurrent findings of bonafide need and comparative hardship recorded by the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Court in proceedings arising out of an application filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (for short 'the Act'). In brief, the facts giving rise to the instant petition are that a release application was filed by the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlady') for release of a shop on the ground floor of building no.21/39 Sarai Meer Khan, Kotwali, Allahabad in the tenancy of the petitioner and proforma respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenants'). The release was sought on the ground that her only son Sunil Kumar is unemployed. He has acquired training in electrical works and would engage himself in the said trade. There is one more shop on the ground floor, in the same building, which is in possession of her husband, in which he has installed machines for grinding food grains and spices. Her family comprising of herself, her husband, son Sunil Kumar and four daughters is living on the first and second floor of the same building. The shop in dispute in the tenancy of the petitioner is ideally suited for the business need of her son.
(2.) The release application was contested by the petitioner-tenant alone by filing written statement contending that the alleged need of the son Sunil Kumar is not bonafide, as he is already doing business of Aata Chakki alongwith his father in the adjoining shop. It is also alleged that the landlady owns several other buildings and she had recently also let out certain shops. The proforma respondents have no concern with the tenancy. Prem Chandra, respondent no.3 is tenant of another shop in building no.40, Sarai Meer Khan, Kotwali, Allahabad. Manik Chandra, respondent no.2 is son from the first wife. It is alleged that he had separated from his father during his life time and has no connection with the shop in dispute. During pendency of the release application, Jugal Kishore, husband of the landlady died on 18.10.1999. The petitioner-tenant thereafter pleaded that now Sunil Kumar is exclusively doing business from his father's shop. He has also installed a big grinding machine in the said shop. His alleged need for settling himself in business of electrical trade thus no more survives. The landlady contested the claim of the tenant and pleaded that after death of her husband, the need of her son Sunil Kumar has not come to an end. She claimed that the business left behind by her husband is being run by her with the assistance of servants. She reiterated that her son, who has taken training in electrical trade, is not interested in doing purchoon business left behind by his father Late Jugal Kishore. He would start business in electrical trade from the shop in dispute as soon as it is released in his favour.
(3.) The Prescribed Authority held that the business of Aata Chakki and purchoon left behind by Jugal Kishore is being conducted by the landlady, as is evident from various photographs filed vide list 186-A. It is not unusual for Sunil Kumar to sit on that shop, as the shop in possession of the petitioner from where he intends to start business in electrical trade has yet not become available to him. The fact that he has been sitting on the shop of his father, after his death, is not sufficient to infer that his need has come to an end. With regard to comparative hardship, it was held that in the Commissioner's report, one room in vacant condition has been shown as available with the petitioner in house no.24, Malviya Nagar, Allahabad. It could be used by the tenant for his business. The petitioner has not made any effort to search out alternative accommodation despite the pendency of the proceedings since a long time. A sum equivalent to two years' rent has also been awarded as compensation to the petitioner, as provided under the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. The appellate court has affirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority. The appellate court has also observed that in the meantime Sunil Kumar has got married and has three issues (two daughters and one son) and in future he would also need additional space to fulfill the need of his growing family. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the death of Jugal Kishore, husband of the landlady, the adjoining shop from which he was doing business of Aata Chakki and purchoon has become available to Sunil Kumar. He is actually engaged in the said business and has also carried out expansion of the business by installing a bigger Aata Chakki. The landlady is quite old and is neither doing any business nor in a position to run the shop. The petitioner has filed number of photographs showing Sunil Kumar doing business from the said shop and an inspection report by the Inspector under the Minimum Wages Act to prove that at the time of inspection, Sunil Kumar was found doing business from the said shop. It is also urged that the shop in dispute is a small one measuring barely 6" x 7" and is not suitable for the alleged need of Sunil Kumar. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Deena Nath Vs. Pooran Lal, 2001 (5) SCC 705. ;