The court upheld the landlord's claim of bona fide need, considering the intended business activities, and clarified that the long period of occupation by the tenant is not a bar to allowing the release application if the need is for an unemployed person.

This is tenants writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by Sone Lal, landlord- respondent No. 3 since deceased and survived by legal representatives including Rajendra Kumar Verma (or Raj Kumar) son of deceased Sone Lal on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Property in dispute is a shop admeasuring 46" x 88". Late Sri Sone Lal purchased the shop in dispute on 26-9-1979. Petitioner Mohd. Yaseen since deceased and survived by legal representatives was tenant of the shop in dispute since before its purchase by Sone Lal. Rate of rent is

Rs. 75/- per month. In the release application it was stated that in the shop in dispute landlord would do business of goldsmith and his son Rajendra Kumar will do the business of watch repairing. The release application was registered as P. A. Case No. 13 of 1986 on the file of prescribed authority. Etawah. Prescribed authority by judgment and order dated 22-8-1986 allowed the release application. Against the said order tenant- petitioner filed R. C. Appeal No. 13 of 1986. District Judge, Etawah through judgment and order dated 23-9-1986 dismissed the appeal, hence this writ petition by tenant. During pendency of the writ petition both the parties i. e. original tenant- petitioner and original landlord respondent No. 3 died and were substituted by legal representatives. In the release application the need for Rajendra Kumar son of the original landlord was also set up and now Rajendra Kumar has also been substituted as one of the legal representatives of original landlord Sone Lal, respondent No. 3 hence death of Sone Lal will not make any difference.

2. Both the Courts below after taking into consideration entire material on record held the need of landlord to be bona fide. They has also decided the question of comparative hardship in favour of the landlord and against the tenant.

3. According to the learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner, Rajendra Kumar was already doing business from another shop, which was adjacent to the shop in dispute. Both the Courts below after perusal of the evidence held that in the said adjacent shop Vinod Kumar the other son of Sone Lal, original landlord was carrying on business. Annexure-3 to the writ petition is affidavit of the tenant filed before prescribed authority. Learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner has placed great reliance upon the allegations made in different paragraphs of the said affidavits. In para 5 of the said affidavit it was stated that the adjoining shop was also purchased by the landlord and in that shop his sons were doing business. Learned and every adult son of the landlord has got a right to have independent business. No one can be compelled to participate in the business run by his father or brother. In this regard reference may be made to Sushila v. A. D. J. , 2003 (52) ALR 160 (SC); 2003 (9) AIC 156 (SC) and A. Kumar v. Mustakeem, AIR 2003 SC 532. It was also urged before the Courts below by the tenant that landlord had got constructed other shops also. This version was utterly disbelieved by the Courts below on appraisal of the evidence.

4. In my opinion there is absolutely nothing wrong with the findings of bona fide need recorded in favour of the landlord by the Courts below. Regarding comparative hardship tenant did not show that he made any effort to search alternative accommodation. This by itself was sufficient to decide the question of comparative hardship against the tenant vide V. S. Mutada v. G. R. Mundada, AIR 2003 SC 2713.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that release should not have been allowed as petitioner was tenant for a long time as provided under Rule 16 (2) (a) of the Rules framed under the Act. Supreme Court in the aforesaid authority of Sushila has held that the said rule is only one of the factors to be taken into consideration and that if the need set up is for unemployed person then long period of