Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This is Landlady’s writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by her against tenants-respondents on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 47 of 2003 on the file of Prescribed Authority/J.S.C.C. Jhansi. Property in dispute is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 90 - per month. Landlady pleaded that she had four sons, out of whom two were doing business of readymade garments and she required the shop in dispute for settling the other two sons i.e. Sri Sanjeev Singh and Sri Surjeet Singh. Initially late Sri Kishen Chandra Lekhadhari was the tenant of the shop in dispute. After his death the respondents inherited the tenancy. Release application was allowed on 1.12.2005. Against the said judgment and order tenants filed R.C. Appeal No. 13 of 2005. A.D.J. Court No. 1 Jhansi allowed the appeal through judgment and order dated 4.10.2006, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority and remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority. Landlady has challenged the said judgment of the appellate Court through this writ petition.

3. The map of the shop in dispute along with other adjoining properties of the landlady is at pages 63-64 of the paper book, which was part of affidavit of Pawan Kumar, tenant-respondent No. 2, before the Courts below and has been annexed along with the copy of the said affidavit, which is Annexure ‘8’ to the writ petition. The number of the shop in dispute is 172. Another shop almost of equal area is situate towards west of the shop in dispute and is numbered as 173. Initially both the shops were in the tenancy occupation of the original tenant. However, release application was earlier filed for the need of Shrimati Urmila Devi, sister of the deceased husband of the landlady and back portion numbered as 173 was released for the need of Shrimati Urmila Devi in the year 1980. In the map at page 63 it is shown that towards south and west of the property in dispute 8 or 10 shops are available to the landlady. However, in the said map itself it is shown that all the shops open in a very narrow passage while shop No. 172 has got opening on the main road. Landlady pleaded that portions shown as shops in the said map filed by the tenant were not shops but were actually used as godowns. In any case landlady offered one of the said shops to the tenant, which was not accepted. Shrimati Urmila had also filed an affidavit in support of the case of the landlady before the Prescribed Authority. In para 5 of the said affidavit she stated that after getting the possession of the shop No. 173 she started doing the job of stitching and weaving. However, due to old age she had stopped doing that business and elder son of the landlady Shrimati Shakuntala Devi was assisting her (Shrimati Urmila) in her business from shop No. 173.

4. Prescribed Authority had held that tenants had ample commercial accommodation at their disposal. However, appellate Court held that it was not sufficient or relevant while considering the bonafide need of the landlord. Appellate Court held that merely because landlady wanted to settle all her sons in business was not sufficient to prove the bonafide need. This view is utterly erroneous in law. Supreme Court in Sushila v. A.D.J., AIR 2003 SC 780 and R.K. Govil v. Maqsoodan, 2007(4) SCC 456, has held that every adult member of the landlord’s family is entitled to have independent separate business and no family member of the landlord can be compelled to participate in the family business. The Appellate Court while remanding the matter completely misdirected itself. Appellate Court held that it was necessary for the Prescribed Authority to decide as to whether the business of selling ready-made garments carried out by