Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri P.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Manish Kumar Jain, Advocate, for petitioner, Sri M.K. Gupta and Sri Amit Gupta, Advocates, for respondent, and, perused the record.

2. Learned counsels for respondent did not propose to file any counter-affidavit and stated that on the basis of record of writ petition, it may be heard and decided finally at this stage. Hence with the consent of counsels for parties, I proceed accordingly under the Rules of the Court to decide the matter finally at this stage.

3. This is a tenant’s writ petition. Respondent, Nand Kumar Kamal, instituted P.A. Case No. 19 of 2007 by filing an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”) seeking release of the accommodation in question on the ground or personal need.

4. The disputed premises is a shop situate at Hanuman Road, Shamli, District Muzaffar Nagar. Petitioner, Suresh Chandra Sharma, occupied the said premises on rent.

5. The application was contested by petitioner-tenant. Application, however, was allowed by Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kairana, Muzaffar Nagar vide judgment dated 31.3.2012 and thereagainst petitioner’s Rent Appeal No. 9 of 2012 has been dismissed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Muzaffar Nagar vide judgment dated 22.1.2013.

6. Senior Counsel Sri P.K. Jain, appearing on behalf of petitioner, vehemently contended that ground set up in the release application was that respondent-landlord, his wife, his son Vivek Kamal, daughter-in-law (son’s wife) and three grandchildren are residing together. Besides two married daughters alongwith their family used to frequently visit the house and relationship of respondent-landlord’s wife and daughter-in-law is quite strained as a result whereof it is difficult for both the families to stay in the same accommodation peacefully and respondent-landlord’s son also finds it difficult to assist him in his existing business. Hence, he (respondent-landlord’s sons), Vivek Kamal, intends to commence his separate business of departmental store for which shop in question is required. It is pointed out that during the pendency of the matter before Prescribed Authority, respondent-landlord’s wife died, hence, the very foundation of the case, i.e., strained relations between respondent-landlord’s wife and daughter-in-law disappeared, hence, both the judgments are illegal and liable to be set aside.

7. My attention is drawn to the affidavit of Sri Vivek Kamal, landlord’s son, placed on record as Annexure 4 to writ petition, where in para 5 it has been admitted by landlord’s son Vivek Kamal that his mother (deponent’s mother and landlord’s wife) had died.

8. It is next submitted that proceedings in question were not maintainable by virtue of Section 2 (1) (d) of Act, 1972 and it was barred, therefore, both the judgments are without jurisdiction. It is contended that shop in question alongwith its machinery for press work was let out to the petitioner and that being so, it comes within the term “industrial purposes”, hence by virtue of Section 2 (1) (d) of Act, 1972, the proceedings in question were incompetent and barred. Reliance is placed in support of the above submissions on a decision of this Court in Neeyat Rout v. 4th Additional District Judge, Varansi, 2011(1) ADJ 47 (NOC).

9. Sir M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent-landlord, submitted that the very statement of respondent’s son referred to by petitioner in para 5 of Annexure 4 shows that he has specifically said that his wife does not pay due respect to the father in law, and, on account of the conduct of wife, Vivek Kamal, landlord’s son, does not find it expedient to work and assist his father in his running business of textiles, and, it is for this reason and peace of family, he intends to commence his independent and separate business in the shop in questi