The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the bona fide need of the landlord and the tenant's occupation rights, as outlined in Rule 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act.

JUDGMENT

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. - Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Challenge in the writ petition was to the order passed by the C prescribed authority as affirmed by the Appellate Authority allowing the release application of Respondent 1 landlady.

3. Sans unnecessary details factual position is as follows:

Late Ram Govil was tenant of a shop situated at Ansari Road, Bulandshahr since 1941. Smt Maqsoodan purchased the aforesaid shop on 11 - 12 - 1979 from Shri Ganesh Datt, the erstwhile landlord. She moved Release Application No. RC 31 of 1984 under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short "the Act") for the need of her son Shamshad Ahmad. In the release application, Respondent 1 landlady prayed that the shop was urgently required as her husband intended to start business of repairing firearms from the disputed shop for her son Shamshad Ahmad.

4. The release application was contested by the appellant tenant by filing written statement and denying the stand. He took the stand that the claim was not bona fide and genuine and the release application has been moved with the malintention of harassing him. It was also alleged that the landlady was in possession of two other shops, having basement as well situated at Ansari Road, Near Chowk Bazar which were in the use and occupation of Shri Imtiaz Ahmad, husband of the landlady. The appellant further alleged that the purpose of getting release of disputed shop was need for starting business of repair of firearms whereas the same business is being run by the husband of the landlady from the aforesaid two shops. The case of the landlady was that the disputed shop was not suitable for the purpose of carrying on business of repair of firearms and that earlier the licence of the shop MIs B.A. Shastra Bhandar was in the name of one Shamshuddin, sisters son of the husband of the landlady, on whose death, Shri Shamshad Ahmad, for whose need the release application had been moved, was carrying on the business of repair of firearms with his father i.e. husband of the landlady from the aforesaid two shops.

5. The appellant claimed that he being a medical practitioner, he has his chamber in the disputed shop wherefrom his son Kumar Govil was carrying on the business as optician and that the situation of the disputed shop was perfect for his above business as there was no other shop of opticians in the vicinity.

6. In support of his case, the appellant filed his own affidavit stating therein that son of the landlady was carrying on the business of repair of firearms with his father i.e. husband of the landlady in two shops along with first basement in Chowk Bazar near Ansari Road, Bulandshahr. He alleged that the family of the landlady was very rich as her husband was in possession of a big shopping complex at Kala Aam Ka Churaha, Bulandshahr near D.M. Colony Road. That apart, the husband of the landlady had constructed large motor workshop having plinth area of 1717 sq yards.

7. The son of the tenant Shri Rishi Kumar Govil also filed his affidavit stating therein that his father was a medical practitioner and he was carrying on the business as optician from the disputed shop. In another affidavit, the appellant stated that he was running the disputed shop and that he had no other source of livelihood and in case he was evicted from the shop, he would have to suffer greater hardship than the landlady. The appellant also filed an affidavit of one Shri Narendra Kumar Upadhyay in his support who stated that the tenant was in medical profession and running his business whereas from the disputed shop his son was carrying on the business as optician.

8. The prescribed authority vide judgment and order dated 8 - 5 - 1986 allowed the release application of the landlady and directed for evi