Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Sanjiv Singh, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner/tenant and Sri Rafiuddin Ansari, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent/landlord.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for the following relief:

I. Issue, an order or direction in the nature of quashing the judgment, decree and order dated 30.9.2015 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Small Cause Judge, Gorakhpur in P.A. Case No. 21 of 2012 (Syed Mahmood Ali v. Manzoor Alam) and the judgment, decree and order dated 20.1.2018 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge E.C. Act, Gorakhpur in Rent Appeal No. 7 of 2015 (Manzoor Alam v. Syed Mahmood Ali) and dismiss the release application filed by the applicant respondent.

Facts

3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that undisputedly plaintiff-respondent is the owner and landlord of disputed shop situate in Mohalla - Miya Bazar, Bank Road, City Gorakhpur. In the said shop the father of the defendant-petitioner was tenant since the year 1955. After his death the tenancy was succeeded by the defendant-petitioner. According to the defendant-petitioner he is a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 275/- while according to the plaintiff-respondent he is tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 875/-. The family of the plaintiff-respondent/landlord consists of his wife and five sons. The first, second and fourth son are employed. The fifth son is unmarried. The third son, Syed Akhtar Mahmood, is also married and he has two children. The plaintiff-respondent has filed the release application being P.A. Case No. 21 of 2012 (Syed Mahmood Ali v. Manzoor Alam) setting up the bona fide need of the disputed shop for establishing business by his third son, namely, Syed Akhtar Mahmood, who has experience in furniture trade. Evidences were led by the parties before the Prescribed Authority who passed the impugned judgment dated 30.9.2015 allowing the release application on the finding that the plaintiff-respondent is in bona fide need of the disputed shop and comparative hardship is in his favour. He also recorded a finding of fact that the defendant-petitioner has not made any effort to search for any alternative accommodation rather he took the stand that there is high premium in the locality for taking a shop on rent, therefore, he cannot take another shop on rent. Aggrieved with the judgment dated 30.9.2015 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Cause Court, Gorakhpur, the defendant-petitioner filed a Rent Appeal No. 07 of 2015 (Manzoor Alam v. Syed Mahmood Ali) which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 20.1.2018, passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge E.C. Act, Gorakhpur. Aggrieved with these two judgments, the defendant-petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Submissions

4. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner submits that both the Courts below have not considered the evidences of the defendant-petitioner on the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship. The findings on the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship have been recorded by the Courts below without consideration of the evidences on record and, therefore, both the judgments deserve to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the impugned judgments have been passed in accordance with law then some time may be granted to enable the defendant-petitioner to vacate the disputed shop.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submits that the plaintiff has established bona fide need for the disputed shop. He submits that it is the admitted case of the defendant-petitioner that the third son of the plaintiff-respondent has no shop to run his business independently and that he (third son) has experience of furniture trade. It has not been disputed that the aforesaid third son is married and his family cons