The court emphasized the importance of genuine and bona fide need for release of the shop, and the consideration of subsequent events affecting the landlord-tenant relationship.

Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This petition by the tenant is directed against an order dated 1.12.1995 by which the appellate court has allowed the release application filed by the respondent landlord.

3. Barkat Ram, owner and landlord of shop no. 200 situated in property no. 70 in Valley Bazar in Meerut filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was registered as P.A. Case No. 11 of 1992. It was alleged in the application that the petitioner was a tenant of the disputed shop at Rs. 500/- per month and was engaged in selling cloth and wool in different weekly markets at different places in Meerut which was his main source of income. It was stated that the shop was let out when his sons were minor and now all the four sons have become major and all of them are married. The two elder sons are employed while the third is a Doctor but his 4th son Vipin Kumar had been helping the landlord in running his clothing business. It was further stated that the Vipin Kumar had strained relations with his mother and since the business in which he was helping was not very profitable, he wants to settle his unmarried son in business of his own for which he required the disputed shop. It was further stated that several shops in that very market were available and the tenant could obtain any shop for him from which he could carry on with his roaming business.

4. The tenant contested the application inter alia alleging that the landlord was an old man of about 70 years who was unable to do any work and in fact, Vipin Kumar his son, was looking after the business and apart from the disputed shop there were two shops on the first floor which were being utilized by Vipin Kumar. It was further alleged that the landlord possessed another property no. 17, Jain Nagar, Meerut which stood in the name of his wife and apart from that they had property no. 4/86 and 4/87 in Modinagar in District Ghaziabad. With these allegations, it was alleged that the need was neither genuine nor bona fide and since the tenant had no other place to shift his business, the comparative hardship would be more to him than to the landlord.

5. After the parties had led their evidence, the Prescribed Authority rejected the application holding that the need was neither genuine nor bonafide and that shop at the first floor was available. On appeal the Court found that the Prescribed Authority has not considered the material evidence available on record whereupon he went on to record findings that both the persons could not run the existing shop of the landlord which was measuring 8 feet by 10 feet and coupled with the fact that relations between the mother in law and the daughter in law was strained and that the son genuinely required an independent shop, the need was both genuine and bona fide and it went on to hold that the even comparative hardship would be greater to the landlord and therefore, allowed the application.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the court through the findings recorded by the appellate court but has failed to point out any error of law, much less an error apparent on the face of record to demonstrate that the order requires interference in writ jurisdiction, because the conclusions recorded by the appellate court are based on findings of fact which cannot be upset except when there is glaring illegality or perversity.

7. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has laid great stress on the fact that during the pendency of this writ petition the landlord had died and therefore, the shop which was being run by the landlord could now be used by his son Vipin Kumar for whom the disputed shop was got released and therefore, the order impugned is bound to be set aside as the need stood satisfied. In support thereof, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Kedarnath Agarwal Vs. Dhanraji Devi [2004 ARC 764] and another decision