N.N.MITHAL, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the tenant has challenged the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and by the appellate Court in proceedings initiated under Section 21 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972.
(2.) THE landlady was originally a resident of Varanashi but on account of some circumstances, she along with her family shifted to Azamgarh where she owns a house having two shops. She made an application under Section 21 for release of the two shops as she intended to carry on business in one shop and also to establish her grand son who was unemployed in the other shop. Admittedly during the pendency of the application, one of the shops had fallen vacant and the landlady has started her business thereon. So far as the other shop is concerned, the proceedings continued and have finally terminated in favour of the landlady. Sri Sanjay Misra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously urged that after having got possession of one of the shop, there was no further need and the application ought not to have been allowed by the Courts below. It is also urged that the provisions of Rule 16(2) have not been taken into account. Both these submissions, however, have no merit. The landlady, has set out the need for the two shops one for herself and the other for her grand son. It is admitted to the petitioner that the landlady is actually carrying on business in one of the shops released in her favour. Therefore the need for the other shop to establish her grand son in business still remains. The Courts have, therefore, rightly come to the conclusion that the other shop was also genuinely and bonafide needed by the landlady for the aforesaid purpose.
(3.) AS to the applicability of Rule 16(2), it may be stated that the length of occupation by the tenant is certainly one of the consideration to be taken into account but merely because the tenant has been carrying on business in the said shop since 1974 would not itself be a ground to deprive the landlady of her right to seek release of her shop. All that the appellate Court has said is that mere length of occupation is not a criteria to allow or disallow an application. In fact the rule requires certain factors to be taken into account before the application for release is allowed. The view expressed by this Court in 1980 ARC page 595 also supports this view.;