important point
When the findings of the appellate authority required a closer scrutiny, the High Court could not have dismissed the writ petition without duly considering the said findings.

judgment

S.B. Sinha, J. —

1.Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 30.11.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 27141 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein challenging the correctness of the judgment dated 8.5.2003 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ghaziabad in R.C.A. No. 90 of 2000, was dismissed. The Appellate Authority on 8.5.2003 by reason of its aforementioned judgment had set aside an order dated 24.7.2000 passed by the 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad.

Relationship between the parties, admittedly, is that of a landlord and tenant. Mother of the respondents herein filed an application for eviction of the suit premises which is a shop in terms of Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The release application was filed on the ground of bona fide requirement for establishing a business for her grand son, Shri Sheel Kumar. An application for amendment was filed at a later stage of the said proceeding in terms whereof, the requirement of the suit premises even for Sewak Ram was pleaded.

The said release application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court, inter alia, opining:

“Sheel Kumar has been carrying on his business under the name and style Balaji Welding Store at Ghantaghar, in front of Punjab National Bank, G.T. Road, Ghaziabad and Sewak Ram is carrying on a business at Gandhi Market, Modi Nagar, taken by him from Nagar Palika in the name of his his wife Smt. Anita Garg.”

In regard to the contention raised by the respondent herein that the appellant had been carrying on three flourishing businesses, it was opined;

“It is correct that opposite party is having a shop near Joshi Motors and Niti Niketan, however, in the shop in dispute applicant is carrying business of electronic items and is also used as a store. Pertaining to property of Joshi Palace affidavits have been filed that the property belongs to his brother Dinesh Joshi.”

It was held :

“From the aforesaid analysis it is proved beyond doubt that daughters of late Smt. Krishna Devi are also co-owner of property in dispute. Besides this, Chetan Lal Garg and Bhagwat Prasad Garg have never given their consent for the release of shop in favour of Sheel Kumar and Sewak Ram Garg. From the facts it is also proved that Sheel Kumar Garg is carrying on the business in Ghazabad under the name of Balaji Welding Store, Ghaziabad and Sewak Ram Garg is also having a shop in the name of his wife Smt. Anita Garg in Gandhi Market Nagar Palika Ghaziabad.”

2.An appeal was preferred thereagainst by the respondents. The Appellate Authority, however, reversed the said findings of the Rent Controller, inter alia, holding:

“–.The said rulings are not applicable as the opposite party is having several commercial premises in his possession which have been admitted by him. It has also been admitted that in the shop in dispute he is using the same as a store also. The appellant has established that Narendra Kumar is out of employment and he is not doing any service. The averments made by opposite party that Narendra Kumar is carrying on business alongwith his son at Ghaziabad in the name and style of Balaji Welding Store, has not been proved. The opposite party could have summon the record of sales tax and income tax department to prove that Narendra Kumar is a partner in the said business. However, opposite party has failed to do so. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that Narendra Kumar is also doing the business alongwith his son Sheel Kumar at Ghaziabad. According to Honble Supreme Court the landlord can carry the additional business also and for that purpose he may require shop in dispute.”

4.It furthermore relied upon Rule 16(3) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, R