The central legal point established in the judgment is the landlord's bonafide need for the property and the consideration of comparative hardship against the tenant.

Heard Shri R.K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner landlord and Shri Uttam Kumar Srivastava learned counsel for the tenant respondent no. 3.

2. This writ petition arises out of eviction/ release proceedings initiated by the original petitioner land lord Rajendra Kumar Agarwal since deceased and survived by legal representative against the tenant respondent no. 3 Shri Prakash Kumar Maithi on the ground of bonafide need U/s 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 24 of 1985 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal Vs. Prakash Kumar Maithi. The property in dispute is commercial in nature dimensions of which are 18x20 Feet. It is situate on main road. According to the land lord the accommodation in dispute is in the form of three shops. Prescribed authority/ IInd Additional Civil Judge, Lucknow allowed the release application in part through judgment and order dated 12.02.1990 and released one of the shops bearing no. 4 in favour of the landlord. Against the said order both the parties filed appeals being Rent appeal no. 39 and 52 both of 1990. 6th A.D.J., Lucknow holding that the accommodation in dispute was only one shop, having three doors allowed the appeal of the tenant and dismissed the appeal of the landlord on 31.05.1995. The result of the judgment of the appeal is that landlord's release application stands dismissed. This writ petition is directed against the order of the appellate court.

3. Rate of rent is Rs. 35/- per month. Tenancy is continuing since 1931 i.e. for 82 years.

4. The need set up in the release application was for Vipin Kumar Agarwal one of the sons of the landlord. Vipin Kumar Agarwal is now petitioner no. ½. Landlord pleaded that on the first floor he was residing alongwith his family and on the ground floor shop (s) in dispute were situate and apart from that some residential portion room was also there. It was also stated that Vipin Kumar Agarwal was getting technical education and was not employed anywhere. Lower Appellate Court held that at the back portion of the accommodation in dispute Vipin Kumar Agrawal was running the business of photostat coping and he was also teaching typing from there. This fact was admitted by the learned counsel for the landlord petitioner as is mentioned in the order dated 22.11.2013 passed on the order sheet which is quoted below :

"Heard Sri R.K. Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner landlord and Uttam Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for tenant respondent.

Judgment reserved.

The dimensions of the accommodation in dispute are 20 feet by 18 feet. One of the disputes is that whether it is one shop as stated by the tenant or these are three shops as stated by the landlord. Learned counsel for both the parties state that on the back side of the accommodation in dispute, the son of the landlord for whose need release application was filed is running business of photostat and there typing is also taught.

On inquiry from court, learned counsel for tenant respondent states that in case matter is decided in favour of the tenant, tenant is ready to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent, which may be determined by the court."

5. In the shop in dispute tenant is carrying business of tailoring and selling medicines. The shop in dispute opens on the main road.

6. If due to non availability of proper accommodation the landlord or one of his sons starts business in a make shift, less suitable accommodation, it does not mean that the need stands fully satisfied. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Chandrika Prasad Vs. Umesh Kumar Verma A.I.R. 2002 Supreme Court 108 that the availability of less suitable accommodation is no ground to reject the release application for a more suitable accommodation. In the said case release was sought for establishing Clinic for a Doctor in a building situate on main road. The Supreme Court held that the availability of an accommodation away from the main road was no ground for rejecting the release application.