The court held that a landlord's need for a shop for his two sons who were practicing advocates and chartered accountants and who needed separate chambers for their practice was a bona fide need and that the hardship caused to the tenants by the release of the shop would be less than the hardship caused to the landlord if the shop was not released.

M.P.Singh, J.

1. Does the U. P. Act no. 13 of 1972 completely overlook the interest of the landlords ? No. This Act is a piece of social legislation aimed at easing the problems of tenants, protecting them from eviction by the greedy landlords, but at the same time it also protects the interest of the landlords for getting the accommodation released, of course, on proof of bona fide need and greater hardship.

2. The petitioners are the tenants of a shop situated at Bag Muzaffar kha, Agra.

Opposite party no. 3, Jagdish Prasad Agarwal purchased bungalow no. 9/26, Bag Muzaffarkha in the year 1959 from one Loomba. The shop in dispute is situate just adjacent to the main gate of the bungalow and is a part of the said building. It is in the form of a garrage. The main building is being used for residential purposes by the landlord.

3. The said shop was taken on rent by one Chaturbhuj Jain from the erstwhile owner in the year 1954. He died leaving behind Shreepal Jain, his only son.

4. Opposite party no. 3 filed an application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act. no. 13 of 1972 (herein-after referred to as the Act) against Shreepal Jain in the year 1979. Shreepal Jain died on 11-1-1983. The petitioners were substituted as his heirs. Petitioner no 1 is his widow while petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are his sons. 7

The case set up by the landlord in his release application (case no. 1 of 1979) was that he had four sons; 1. Shiv Narain Agarwal, a practising Advocate, 2. Umakant Agrawal, practising Advocate on taxation side, 3. Virendra Agrawal, charted accountant and 4. Surendra Agrawal, who was also highly qualified. He has a degree of M.B.A. from Ahmedabad. He wanted to start his engineering industry at Agra.

5. Opposite party no. 3 himself is a senior practising lawyer on taxation side. He has got his chamber at Rawatpara consisting of one room (25 x 15 feet) along with two kotharies (6x8 feet). It is a rented accommodation on the first floor. The kotharies are without any ventilation and are being used for keeping files. He has become very old and is aged about 66 years now. He cannot climb up the stairs to reach his chamber easily. He is present in Court. He cannot even walk properly without the help of sticks in his both hands.

6. He sits in his chamber at Rawatpara at fixed hours. Sometimes his clients as well as the clients of his sons, also come for consolation at his residence. They have no accommodation to meet the clients. One small room which, in fact, is the study room of the children, is often used for meeting the clients which disturbs the studies of his grand-children.

Mainly the application was filed for the need of Umakant Agrawal and Virendra Kumar Agrawal, the two sons. Umakant Agrawal is a practising Advocate on taxation side and Virendra Kumar Agrawal is a chartered Accountant. At present both the sons are sitting alongwith the landlord in his chamber at Rawatpara. On account of their growing practice, these two sons require Separate chambers. The disputed shop will be converted into two chambers after making suitable alterations.

7. Shreepal Jain was the only son of the original tenant, Chaturbhuj Jain He was a practising lawyer on taxation side till his death. Anil Kumar Jain, his elder son, who is having a degree of M.Com. was assisting him in the practice. According to him a commerce graduate was entitled to practise without any degree of LLB and without being entrolled as an Advocate. Now he is a regular practitioner Ashok Kumar Jain the second son is also a law graduate and is a practising Advocate.

8. The business of Halwai was being carried on in the shop in dispute through the servants of the petitioners. The petitioners have got two similar accommodation in adjoining building no. 9/25 and 9/25/2, Bag Muzaffarkha. It consisted of two shops about 7.5 x 10 feet each, with a verandah of 17.4 x 6.2 feet. The area of the accommodation in dispute is only 14.5 x 9 feet and 8 feet height. The peti