Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's writ petition against the order dated 5.3.1992 allowing the landlord's appeal and application in proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act for short). Narendra Kumar, Respondent No. 2 filed an application before the Prescribed Authority under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act for release of the shop on the ground that this is a joint family property in which his brothers have also shares and it is required by himself alongwith his brothers and their children and as such shop is needed for bona fide requirement and may be released. The Prescribed Authority after considering the evidence on record of the case came to the conclusion that the shop was not a joint family property and it is inclusively owned by Narendra Kumar. As far as needs of Narendra Kumar and Krishna Gopal are concerned the Prescribed Authority held that their need is not bona fide and he dismissed this application. Aggrieved by his order Narendra Kumar filed an appeal. This appeal has been allowed. The appellate authority has given a finding that Narendra Kumar and his son Krishna Gopal, brother Satya Prakash, nephew Brijesh Kumar and Rajesh Kumar as unemployed and the shop is bona fide required for them. He has also compared the hardship and in view of the fact that the tenant has already having sufficient accommodation, the greater hardship will occasion to the landlord in case their application is dismissed. In view of these findings be allowed the appeal and application filed by the landlord, hence the writ petition.
(2.) SRI P.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Prescribed Authority has held that the shop is not a joint family property. This finding has not been set aside and as such the need of the brother of Narendra Kumar and need of nephew of Narendra Kumar could not be looked into. It is true the finding given by the Prescribed Authority that the shop is not a joint family property had not been specifically set aside. Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel for the respondents, has not been able to point out any statement in the impugned judgment to show that the finding of the Prescribed Authority is set aside but the fact still remains that the Appellate Court has held that Narendra Kumar and his son Krishna Gopal to be unemployed; their need undoubtedly is to be considered. In view of this the judgment of Appellate Court is not liable to be set aside on this ground. Sri P.K. Jain further submits that as far as the Prescribed Authority is concerned it has given a finding that Narendra Kumar carries on business alongwith his son Vinay Kumar in confectionery shop. Krishna Gopal also sites there. In view of this the need of Narendra Kumar and Krishna Gopal can not be said to be bona fide. It is true that Prescribed Authority has given a to this effect. This has been considered by the Appellate Court and Appellate Court after considering this fact has held that Narendra Kumar and Krishna Gopal are unemployed and as such this contention can not be accepted. Sri P.K. Jain further submits that Narendra Kumar has died during the pendency of the writ petition in this Court and hence his need cannot be considered. This is not correct. Narendra Kumar was alive when the appeal was allowed. He died during the pendency of the writ petition. This is a subsequent event during the pendency of writ petition in this Court and it can not be taken into account. In any case Krishna Gopal is still alive. Finding of bonafide need can not be vitiated by this ground. The Appellate Court has held that the tenant has sufficient alternative accommodation available to him. He can easily shift his business there. If the application of the landlord is dismissed it will cause greater hardship. This is a finding of fact. There is neither any illegality nor anything has been pointed out against it. The writ petition has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted six months time to file vacate the premises in dispute provided he files an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Prescribed Authority concerned with one month from today that he will handover peaceful possession of the premises in dispute to the landlord within six months and pay entire rent for the period of his occupation.;