S.U.Khan, J. - (1.)HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.)THESE three writ petitions have been filed by the same landlords whose release applications under Section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, filed on the ground of bona fide need against tenants who are respondent No. 1 in each of these petitions have been rejected. The properties in dispute are three shops adjoining to each other. One shop each is in possession of the respondent No. 1 in each of these writ petitions. The need set up in the release application was that the landlords wanted to settle their son in business who intended to open a departmental store after demolition of the three shops and constructing a new big shop for being used as departmental store. Release application against tenant Ghanshyam Das Sunar since deceased and survived by Jairam Verma was registered as Rent Case No. 27 of 1991, release application against Bhoop Chandra Sharma was registered as Rent Case No. 35 of 1991 and release application against Palak Dhari was registered as Rent Case No. 12 of 1992. Prescribed Authority/Special C.J.M., Kanpur allowed the release applications through common judgment and order dated 14.11.1994. Against the said order three appeals were filed being Rent Appeal No. 128 of 1994, 140 of 1994 and 17 of 1994.
Appeals were allowed by XIV A.D.J., Kanpur Nagar through judgment and order dated 8.1.1996 and order of the prescribed authority allowing the release application was set aside, hence this writ petition by the landlord. Landlords purchased the property in dispute in 1977. Each tenanted accommodation consists of two portions, one on the front and one on the back side. The dimension of each front portion is 12 feet 8 inch x 9 feet. The dimension of each back portion is 9 feet x 9 feet. Palak Dhari is carrying on the business of Bhurji (grain parcher) and the accommodation in his possession is on extreme south. The accommodation in possession of Bhoop Chandra Sharma is on north side. Jai Ram Verma is tenant of the accommodation in the middle and the rent of each shop is about Rs. 10 per month. Landlords are residing on the first floor of the accommodations in dispute. It was pleaded by the landlord that they had two sons. Elder son Daya Shanker was partner in the family business firm, however, Ram Shankar Gupta younger son of the landlord was unemployed and he wanted to open departmental provisional store. The appellate court agreed with the prescribed authority on several points, however appellate authority allowed the appeals only and only on the ground that Ram Shanker Gupta was found to be doing the business of selling and purchasing shares and had some money in his account.

In my opinion the view taken by appellate court is utterly erroneous in law. Selling and purchasing shares (for one self and not for others) cannot be said to be a regular business. Several people sell and purchase shares for investment. Appellate court did not find that any regular business was being done by Ram Shanker Gupta. The appellate court itself rightly rejected the contention of the tenants that need was not bona fide as occasionally Ram Shanker Gupta was helping his father and brother in the family business. Supreme Court in Sushila v. IInd Addl. District Judge, Banda, AIR 2003 SC 780 ; Akhileshwar Kumar v. Mustaqim, AIR 2003 SC 532 : 2003 (3) AWC 2545 (SC) and Ram Kumar Barnwal v. Ram Lakhan, 2007 AIR SCW 3250 : 2007 (3) AWC 2866 (SC), has held that every adult members of the landlords' family is entitled to independent separate business.

(3.)THE tenant had also contended that towards the other side of the property in dispute there was a big shop let out to another tenant by the landlords and that shop was on the main road (Meston Road) which could have better satisfied the need of the landlord for opening departmental store, hence landlord should have filed release application against the said tenant. It was further contended by the tenants that property in dispute was situate on narrow lane/road. This contention was also rightly rejected by the lower appellate court. Out of several tenants, landlord is at complete liberty to file release application against any one.
As far as comparative hardship is concerned prescribed authority rightly held that it lay in favour of the landlord. Tenant did not make any effort to search alternative accommodation. As held by the Supreme Court in B.C. Bhutada v. G.R. Mundada, AIR 2003 SC 2713, such omissions is sufficient to tilt the balance of comparative hardship in favour of landlord.