The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of a landlord's bona fide need for eviction, considering the sincerity and honesty of the requirement and the balance of comparative hardship.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the landlady for setting aside the judgment and order dated 14th October, 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 5 Kanpur Nagar by which the appeal filed by the tenant under section 22 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the act) against the order of the Prescribed Authority was allowed and the application filed by the landlady under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for eviction of the tenant from the shop in dispute was rejected.

( 2 ) NOTICES were issued to the respondents. In view of the office report dated 11th December, 2006 service of notice of the writ petition on the respondents was found to be sufficient as is clear from the order dated 1st August, 2007 no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents and nor has any counsel appeared for the respondents even in the revised list.

( 3 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and have examined the materials available on record.

( 4 ) THE records of the writ petition indicate that the landlady filed an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act that she was the owner of the shop in dispute; that the shop was required for the need of her third son Amar nath Bajpai who was a practicing lawyer in the Civil Court, Kanpur Nagar and bonafide required the shop for his chamber; that the shop in question was lying locked for the last five years and that the landlady was likely to suffer greater hardship in the event the application was rejected.

( 5 ) A reply was filed mentioning therein that the applicant was not the sole landlady and owner of the shop in dispute as she became the owner along with her four sons and was only the co-landlady and that her son Amar Nath bajpai for whom the need has been set up was not doing any practice.

( 6 ) THE Prescribed Authority allowed the application by the order dated 26th March, 2004. An Appeal was filed by the tenant under section 22 of the Act which has been allowed and the application filed by the landlady has been dismissed.

( 7 ) SRI Vinod Sinha learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Court fell in error in holding that the landlady did not bonafide require the shop for the need of her son to establish his chamber. He further submitted that even the Appeal was not competent as it was not signed by the appellants as was required to be done in view of the provisions of Rule 7 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the rules ). Elaborating his submissions he contended that the Appellate Court observed that Amar Nath Bajpai for whom the need was set up was actually in possession of three rooms in House no. 49/24 General Ganj, Kanpur Nagar and out of these three rooms, two rooms were situated on the second floor while one room was situated on the first floor rut this is factually incorrect as Amar Nath Bajpai acquired only two rooms, under the will and both these rooms were situated on the second floor. He, therefore, contended that the finding recorded by the Appellate Court that he could reside in the two rooms on the second floor and set up his chamber in the room on the first floor was perverse. In this connection he has placed before the court the will executed by the father and from the same has pointed out that only two rooms on the second floor were bequeathed to Amar Nath Bajpai. His contention is that the two rooms on the second floor are for residential purposes and cannot be utilized for his chamber.

( 8 ) THE Supreme Court has time and again explained what bona fide need is in Siddalingamma and another v. Mamtha Shenoy, 2002 46 ALR (SC) 18, the Supreme Court pointed out:-

"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 hi