The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the landlord's bonafide need, the tenant's comparative hardship, and the definition of family under the Act.

( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THIS is landlords writ petition arising out of eviction/ release proceedings initiated by original landlord petitioner Bachchu Lal since deceased and survived by his widow on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U. P Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of Rent Case No. 170 of 1975.

( 3 ) IN the release application, it was stated that landlord required the shop in dispute for himself (as he had retired) and for settling Ghanshyam one of his five sons. Prescribed authority/ Special chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar through judgment and order dated 28. 10. 1991, allowed the release application. However prescribed authority awarded twenty months rent amounting to rs. 625/- as damages to the tenant. Against the said judgment and order original tenant respondent No. 3 Baij Nath filed Rent Appeal No. 218 of 1991. Rent Appeal was allowed by IX a. D. J Kanpur Nagar on 24. 12. 1994 hence this writ petition.

( 4 ) DURING pendency of writ petition both the original landlord as well as original tenant died. Landlord has been substituted by his widow who has stated that she requires the shop in dispute to settle her son Ghanshyam (for whose need also release application was filed by original landlord ). It has been stated that the original petitioner had executed a will in respect of his several properties and shop in dispute was given to his widow Smt Maharaji who has been substituted at the place of sole petitioner.

( 5 ) AS far as tenant is concerned he has died and his son Radhey Shyam Gupta has been substituted. However Radhey Shyam Gupta has filed counter affidavit stating therein that the. tenancy of the shop in dispute as well as business carried out there from was bequeathed by original tenant Baij Nath in favour of his three grandsons (i. e. sons of Radhey Shyam ). It is admitted that Radhey Shyam is carrying on business from another shop and shop in dispute and the business carried out there from is in exclusive possession and control of his sons. While allowing substitution application by order of date I have held that there can not be any will in respect of tenancy (as held by the Supreme Court in AIR1984 SC 1880 , 1984 (2 )SCALE538 , (1984 )4 SCC434 , [1985 ]1 SCR889 , 1985 (17 )UJ33 (SC ) Jaspal singh v. A. D. J. Appellate court recorded a very strange finding while rejecting the release application and allowing the appeal. Appellate court held that for doing the work of goldsmith independent shop is not required and Ghanshyam for whom the shop was required could carry on the said business either from his house or from the shop of any of his brothers. The Supreme court in Sushila v. A. D. J. AIR2003 SC 780 , JT2002 (10 )SC 410 , (2003 )2 SCC28 and A. Kumar v. Mustaquim AIR2003 SC 532 , 2003 (3 )AWC2545 (SC ), 2003 (1 )BLJR466 , [2003 (1 )JCR239 (SC )], JT2002 (10 )SC 203 , (2003)1 SCC462 , 2003 (1 )UJ73 (SC ) has held that each and every family member of the landlord is entitled to separate independent business and no family member can be compelled to participate either in the family business or in the business of his brothers. Tenant pointed out that other shops were available to the original landlord. However his other sons were doing business from those shops. It could not even be asserted by the tenant that Ghanshyam was doing any business or was otherwise gainfully engaged.

( 6 ) IN respect of comparative hardship tenant did not show that he made any efforts to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application. This was sufficient to tilt the balance of comparative hardship against the tenant. The appellate court while allowing the appeal was very much impressed by the fact that for about 65 years the shop in dispute was in tenancy occupation of tenant. Mere long possession is not sufficient to reject the release application. The rent is Rs. 31. 25/- per month. For a shop in Kanpur Nagar such rent is rather ridiculous. It