Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri B.D. Madhyan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Om Prakash, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners, and Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Saran, Advocate on behalf of respondents.

2. This is tenant writ petition. Application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by the land-lords of the premises in respect of five shops together being P.A. Case No. 3 of 2002. The shops are situate at Gadh Road, Meerut. According to the land-lords, they had obtained post graduate degree in medical sciences and they wanted to establish their independent clinic in the aforesaid shops for examination of patients and operation theatre etc. They would use these five shops together after necessary alteration. It was stated that except for the aforesaid five shops, the land lords did not have any alternative accommodation available with them for the purpose.

3. The application so filed by the land-lord was contested by the tenant petitioners and it was contended that the landlords were owners of large number of properties, they were infact carrying on their profession from two different shops, which were in their tenancy. They also had shops available with them in Yadu Hotel of which they were co-owners and even otherwise, they had open piece of land and residential houses, where such profession of Doctor could be legally carried on. It was stated that the tenants had been carrying on business from the shops in question for the last more than 30 years and it would be too harsh to ask the tenants to vacate the shops in question. Reference was also made to the engagement of the land-lords in the hospitals situate in Noida. Therefore, it is stated that need set up by the landlords was not bona fide.

4. The Prescribed Authority after considering the pleadings and evidence led by the parties recorded a finding that the landlords were Doctors by profession, they had obtained post graduate degree in medical sciences from respective medical colleges. They infact wanted to establish their own clinic in the shops in question, which were in the possession of the tenants. There was no other suitable accommodation to satisfy the bona fide need of the land lords. It was recorded that the residential houses and the open piece of land available to the land-lords was not suitable for the purpose for establishing the clinic. Lastly it was recorded that although some shops may have become available to the landlords at Yadu Hotel, but such shops were not suitable for establishing a clinic. After recording the aforesaid finding, the Prescribed Authority went on to hold that the tenants have failed to search any alternative accommodation during the pendency of the release proceedings, the issue of comparative hardship also lays in favour of the land lords. The application was therefore, granted vide order dated 21st April, 2005.

5. Not being satisfied with the order so passed by the Prescribed Authority, the tenants filed Misc. Appeal 100 of 2005. The appeal has been dismissed after affirming the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 31st March, 2011. It is against these two orders that the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Challenging the aforesaid two orders, Sri B.D. Madhyan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Om Prakash, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners vehementally contended that in the facts of the present case, need of the landlord was not bona fide, they were carrying on their profession as doctors from the two shops, which are said to have been let out to them by their mother and father-in-law respectively. Their family was joint and the said shops were sufficient to satisfy the need of land-lords. It was further stated that during the pendency of the proceedings, they have got possession of two shops, at Yadu Hotel which could be sufficient to establish the clinic, as per the need set up by the landlords. Reference