The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of 'bona fide need' and comparative hardship in release applications under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

Anil Kumar, J. –

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

2. Facts in brief of the present case are that the landlord/petitioner moved an application for release of the shop situated at Main Road, City-Lakhimpur near Tandon cycle Bhandar which is bounded as East-Main Road, West-Puri Jewellers, North-Tandon Cycle Bhandar and South-Siddiqui Paints Shop under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act) under the tenancy of opposite party no.1/Jitendra Kumar Gupta on a monthly rent of Rs. 600/-.

3. Need as set up by the landlord/petitioner in the release application is that he is required the shop in order to do a business and earn livelihood for his family along with his son, accordingly, a Rent Eviction Case No.7/04 has been registered before the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.), Lakhimpur Kheri.

4. On behalf of the opposite party no.1, written statement has been filed denying the need as set up by the landlord/petitioner in the release application and defence was also taken to the effect that landlord/petitioner has a shop adjacent to the shop which is under the tenancy of the opposite party no.1 and from where he can start his business. So a commission was issued by the Prescribed Authority, Amin Commissioner submitted his report inter alia stating therein that there is no other shop in possession of the petitioner.

5. The Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.), Lakhimpur Kheri, after taking into consideration the pleadings, document and evidence on record as led by the parties, allowed the release application by order dated 28.02.2007, challenged by filing Rent Appeal No.1/2007 under Section 22 of the Act by the opposite party no.1, allowed by order dated 26.02.2008 passed by Special Judge/Upper District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the appellate order submits that the court below has failed to appreciate that the need of landlord/petitioner is genuine and bona fide and in this regard, on the basis of the material on record, the finding of fact has been given by the trial court/Prescribed Authority in favour of the petitioner regarding his bona fide need without reversing the said finding.

7. He further submits that the finding given by the appellate court is totally contrary to law as no effort has been made by the tenant in order to search out any other accommodation since when an application for release was moved. So keeping in view the above said facts, bona fide need and comparative hardship will tilt in favour of the landlord/petitioner.

8. Shri Vivek Manishi Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the supplementary affidavit, submits that one Shri Mukhtyar Ali, s/o Shri Danish Ali who is tenant of opposite party no.1 had vacated the shop in question and handed over the same to him. Accordingly, taking into consideration the said facts, the impugned order dated 26.02.2008 passed by Special Judge/Upper District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri is liable to be set aside.

9. Shri Avadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent while defending the judgment passed by the appellate court submits that as the shop in question is under the tenancy of opposite party no.1 since 1991, so keeping in view the provisions as provided under Rule 16 (2) (A) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, there is no justification or reason to allow the release application moved by the landlord/petitioner. Hence, taking into consideration the said facts as well as comparing the bona fide need and comparative hardship between the parties, the order passed by appellate court dated 26.02.2008 is perfectly valid and need no interference.

10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the provisions as provided under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, the first question which is to be