The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing a landlord's bona fide need and considering the comparative hardship in cases involving the release of accommodation.

Anjani Kumar, J.—This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner-tenant challenges the order dated 18th July, 2003, passed by the appellate authority, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant under Section 22 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ and the order dated 19th February, 2001, passed by the prescribed authority, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, whereby the prescribed authority allowed the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act filed by the respondents-landlord.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondents-landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for the release of the accommodation in question, which is a shop, on the ground that the accommodation is bona fide required by the landlord in order to settle his elder son Samiuddin, who is at present doing nothing. It is further stated in the application that Samiuddin was carrying on a business, which has to close down because of the heavy losses and he wants to start a fresh business of glass bangles and the youngest son, who has passed B. Com examination and could not get any job and there is no chance of any Government job. Both the sons will start a new business to be settled in case the shop in question is released in favour of the landlord. The further assertion is that because of no employment or business, Samiuddin, who is already married and has two children and a wife, they are in mental tension and the marriage of the youngest son could not be settled down because of the lack of any engagement. The petitioner-tenant denied the aforesaid allegations made in the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act by the landlord and raised objection that in fact the landlord does not require the shop in question and further that the statement in the application that the landlord does not possess any other property in vacant condition is totally incorrect. In fact the landlord has several properties and many of them are in vacant condition, where he can settle down his sons. It is further submitted that many properties belong to the landlord have been let out by the landlord and the landlord can get any property vacated and settle his sons over there. It was therefore submitted by the tenant that the need of the landlord is not bona fide. It is again submitted that in fact the sons of the landlord do not have any interest in carrying on any business and they do not have any experience also. They in fact want to act in Films. On the comparative hardship, the petitioner-tenant has also submitted that he has no other building or accommodation where he can shift his business, which he is carrying on for past 40 years and he is not able to get any other job, therefore the application filed by the respondent-landlord is mala fide and liable to be rejected.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties before the prescribed authority, the parties have adduced their evidence. The prescribed authority after considering the evidence on record arrived at the conclusion that the need of the landlord is bona fide in view of the law laid down by this Court that the need for settling his son is bona fide need. The mala fide alleged by the tenant has not been established. So far as the question of comparative hardship is concerned, the prescribed authority after considering the evidence on record arrived at the conclusion that the tilt of the comparative hardship is in favour of the landlord. The prescribed authority therefore vide order dated 19th February, 2001 allowed the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act filed by the landlord and directed the release of the shop in question in favour of the landlord. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners-tenant preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act before the appellate