The landlord has the freedom to judge his requirement for business purposes and is entitled to separate independent business. A landlord cannot be compelled to convert residential accommodation for commercial purposes.

Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—

1. This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23.12.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Bijnor upholding the order dated 21.05.2010 passed by Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (J.D), Nageena, Bijnor in P.A. Suit No. 15 of 1987, whereby the release application filed by the respondent-landlord was allowed.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

2. An application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the "Act") was filed by the respondent-landlord on the ground of bonafide and genuine need. It was inter-alia pleaded that the petitioner is a tenant of the disputed shop at the rate of Rs.275/- per month; It was further pleaded that he was carrying cloth business by selling it door to door. While carrying/moving with so much of weight, he became a patient of blood-pressure and was advised by Doctor not to strain himself physically. The petitioner-tenant contested the release application and filed his written statement, wherein he denied and disputed the averments made in the release application.

3. The Trial Court after perusing the material available on record allowed the release application of the landlord-respondent by order dated 21.05.2010.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner-tenant preferred an Appeal under Section 22 of the Act, which was registered as Rent Appeal No. 09 of 2010. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 23.12.2011. Hence the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the courts below are illegal, arbitrary and are based on complete misreading of the case and misconception of legal position relevant to the matter and have not considered the evidence on record in right perspective.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the landlord-respondent is already in possession of four shops, wherein he is doing the business of selling and repairing the bicycle, therefore, the need of the respondent-landlord is not bonafide and genuine. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant further submitted that the petitioner is carrying on the business of photostat and videography in the disputed shop, which is quite near to the Munsif Court. The shop offered by the landlord to the petitioner was not at all suitable for his business, therefore, he refused the offer.

7. Both the courts below recorded the findings of fact that the landlord is a old and feeble person and is a patient of high blood pressure. The shops in his possession are situated across the Railway line in Bijnor Road, which are quite far away from the main city and are not suitable for carrying on the business of cloth.

8. The court below has also recorded a finding that the landlord does not have any suitable accommodation to carry on his independent business, as such, he requires the shop in question to carry on the business of cloth. 9. The court below has also recorded a finding that apart from the disputed shop, there is one more shop situated about 37 feet away from the disputed shop in which the petitioner is carrying on business of Mobile Phone. The finding has been recorded by the courts below on the basis of the relevant material available on record. The existence of the said shop has not been denied by the petitioner, only this much has been said that the said shop was purchased jointly by his wife and his Sister in law (Bhabhi). Therefore, the petitioner is already having an alternative accommodation apart from the disputed shop.

10. It has come on the record that during the pendency of the release application, the petitioner was offered a shop, which is situated across the railway line but the same was refused by him. When the petitioner himself did not find the said shop suitable for his business, how can he expect from the petitioner to carry on business of cloth in the said shop.

11. The court below has also recorded a finding that during the pendency

Click Here to Read the rest of this document