The judgment established the importance of proving the landlord's bona fide requirement and the tenant's obligation to seek alternative accommodation. It also clarified the entitlement of the tenant to compensation as per the Act.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india has been filed by the tenant to assail the order passed by the Prescribed authority in favour of the landlord under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the tenant from the shop in dispute. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the order passed by the Appellate authority by which the appeal filed under section 22 of the Act, was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE records of the writ petition indicate that the landlord had filed an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for release of the disputed shop and for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the landlord bona fide required the premises for setting up an independent business for his son who was of marriageable age. It was also asserted by the landlord that he would suffer greater hardship in the event the application was rejected. The tenant filed a reply to the aforesaid application and it was stated that the landlord could establish his eldest son in business from the portion available in the gallery of his residential portion.

( 3 ) THE Prescribed Authority found the need of the landlord to establish his eldest son in business to be bona fide as business could not done from the 4 feet gallery as alleged by the tenant. The Prescribed Authority also found that the landlord was likely to suffer greater hardship in the event the application was rejected and in coming to this conclusion, the Prescribed Authority has also taken into consideration the fact that during the pendency of the application filed by the landlord, the tenant had made no efforts whatsoever to obtain any alternative accommodation. The Appellate Authority has confirmed the findings of the Prescribed Authority.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner raised the same contentions as were advanced before the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority. He also contended that no compensation was awarded to the tenant as was required to be awarded under the second proviso to section 21 (1) of the Act.

( 5 ) I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

( 6 ) IT has to be determined whether the need of the applicant to obtain the disputed shop was bona fide.

( 7 ) HOWEVER, before adverting to the facts of this case it would be necessary to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Siddalingamma and another v. Mamtha Shenoy, 2002 46 ALR (SC) 18, wherein it has been observed that some sympathy has to be shown to the landlord when an application is moved for eviction on ground of bona fide requirements:

"rent Control Legislation generally leans in favour of tenant, it is only the provision for seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of landlord for his own occupation or use of the tenanted accommodation which treats the landlord with some sympathy. In Shiv sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, 1999 6 SCC 222 this Court has held that a bona fide requirement must be an outcome of a sincere, honest desire in contra-distinction with a mere pretext for evicting the tenant on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family which would entitle the landlord to seek ejectment of the tenant. The question to be asked by a judge of facts, by placing himself in the place of the landlord is, whether in the given facts proved by material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere honest? If the answer be in the positive the need is bona fide. The concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . "

( 8 ) IT is in the light of the aforesaid provisions that the facts of this case have to be examined.

( 9 ) THE need of the landlord to establish his son in an independent