The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's consideration of bonafide need and comparative hardship in the context of a release application, and the feasibility of part release for establishing a business.

1. Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 23.1.2016 passed by the II-Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kanpur Nagar/Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Case No. 10/2006, Smt. Rameshwari Saxena Vs. Satpal & others and judgment dated 25.7.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 22 of 2016, Braj Mohan Versus Smt. Rameshwari Saxena & others filed as Annexures 12 and 14 to the writ petition.

3. The landlady filed a release application for need of her son Adesh Saxena who is stated to be a B.Tech and is unemployed and aged about 43 years of age. The same was contested by the tenant. Ultimately, the release application was allowed and the appeal filed by the tenant was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the trial court for decision afresh on the bonafide need, comparative hardship including the question of part release as the contention of the tenant was that the shop is big in size and is measuring 20 x 30 feet and after partition the shop available to the landlady would be 10 x 30 feet.

4. On matter being remanded back four issues were framed.

5. First Issue was regarding the landlord and tenant relationship and there being no contest on the same, the same was decided in affirmative. The second Issue was regarding partition as to whether the partition of the shop would serve the purpose and can be partitioned as proposed by the tenant. The third Issue was regarding bonafide need and the fourth Issue was regarding comparative hardship.

6. On issue no. 2 the landlady has stated that the measurement of the shop is 23 x 17.5 feet and the case of the landlady was that after partition the shop the size of the front would be reduced which would not be proper for carrying on ready-made garments business on a large scale as the front would be reduced to about 8 feets. It was further contended that Kamal Krishna son of the tenant is carrying on his business in General Ganj, Kanpur and therefore, the tenant has alternative option. It was further stated that the landlady is a widow lady whose husband died long back and when the shop was given on rent about 50 years back her husband was alive and they did not have any children and now her son Adesh Saxena is aged about 43 years and since he is unemployed therefore, for this reason the shop is required. It was submitted that although the provisions of Rule 16 (1) (d) of the Rules framed under Act 13 of 1972 are not applicable on a commercial accommodation, still even considering the facts of the case after partition the area available to the accommodation would not be sufficient for carrying on business on a large scale which is proposed on the shop in question.

7. All these facts were disputed by the tenant by submitting that Adesh Saxena is not unemployed and the landlady and her son have shifted to Delhi where Adesh Saxena is well established in a computer business and therefore, the need is not bonafide and genuine and in any case after partition the need can be satisfied. It was further submitted that refusal to offer of part release further demonstrates that the need of the landlady is not pressing, bonafide and genuine.

8. After considering the aforesaid contention, facts and evidence on record a finding was recorded that the landlady cannot be forced in this matter by the tenant as to how the landlady is to carry on her business and therefore, the issue of part release was decided against the tenant.

9. On bonafide need considering the same facts it was found that the son of the landlady is now 48 years of age and has got married three years back after filing of the release application and he is still unemployed and therefore, the need is pressing and bonafide. The need was disputed merely on the ground that the landlady and her son Adesh Saxena