JUDGMENT

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:— This appeal is by special leave. Appellants are monthly tenants of a shop located in bazar Shahid Ganj within the city of Saharanpur in Uttar Pradesh on a monthly rent of Rs. 19.38 per month. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of release passed in the courts below and upheld by the High Court of Allahabad in favour of the landlady, respondent No. 1.

2. The respondent moved the Prescribed Authority under S. 21 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 for an order of release of the premises referred to above on the allegations that her son, a doctor, intended to settle down in the medical profession at Saharanpur and needed the premises for establishing a clinic. It was claimed that the shop-room with the adjacent shop would be re-built into a convenient place for housing the clinic. It was further maintained that the tenants were doing business of repairing electrical goods which they could shift to any other place without inconvenience. The tenants resisted the application contending, inter alia, that the shop-room was only 8 1/2 x 24 1/2 in size and the location was such that it was totally unsuitable for medical practice. It was pointed out that in Saharanpur most of the doctors had their clinics away from this place. The landlady, it was maintained, had a palatial residential building and several other shops and accommodations belonging to her. She had no bona fide in making of the application and a list of properties belonging to the landlady was detailed in their objection filed before the Prescribed Authority. It was also pointed out that apart from the properties standing in the name of the landlady the other members of the family had extensive properties; for instance, the wife of the eldest son of the respondent No. 1 was the owner of 8 big shop-rooms within Saharanpur city and one of it was lying vacant. The tenants pleaded that they were in occupation of the premises since 1939 and had built up goodwill and local reputation in and around the area. No other site was available in the locality or even at reasonable distance from that place as an alternative accommodation to them. They pleaded that while the landlady on account of her status and several premises at her command was in a position to think of opening of the clinic at some other place, they were not in a position to shift from the shop premises. The balance of convenience as such in consideration of comparative hardship was in their favour and prayer for release should not be granted.

3. The Prescribed Authority brushed aside all the contentions of the tenants and allowed the release application by order dated October 18, 1978 directing the tenants to be compensated to the tune of two years rent and allowed them 18 months time to deliver vacant possession. The appellants carried an appeal to the Additional District Judge. It is relevant to point out here that the landlady had claimed that the shop-room in dispute as also the adjacent shop would be put together for re-construction for the purpose of providing accommodation for the clinic. The order of release in respect of the adjacent shop-room was, however, vacated in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge on a finding that accommodation for the clinic was available in the ground floor of the respondents residential house and there was no bona fide requirement in respect of the premises in possession of the tenants of the adjacent shop premises. So far as the appellants appeal was concerned the learned Additional District Judge, however, took a different view and sustained the order of the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the appeal. The appellants invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court but failed.

4. The landlady came before the Prescribed Authority with a positive stand that for locating the clinic both the adjacent shop-rooms (the one in possession of the tenants-appellants and the other in possession of Kumar Brothers & Co.) would be built into one sp