The landlord's genuine need for the premises and the tenant's failure to seek alternative accommodation can influence the court's decision in a landlord-tenant dispute.

Rakesh Sharma, J.

Heard Sri D.C. Jain holding brief of Sri H.S. Sahai, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner-tenant and Sri I.D. Shukla, holding brief of Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the respondent-landlady.

2. The petitioner has assailed the two orders, one passed by the prescribed authority/Munsif, Sadar, Faizabad on 28.4.1995 by which the application of the landlady filed u/s 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (Act XIII of 1972), hereinafter referred to as the Act, has been allowed and the other, order dated 19.3.1999, passed by the appellate authority, i.e., VII It h Additional District Judge, Faizabad, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner was directed to hand over peaceful possession of the shop in question to the respondent landlady within one month. Both the learned courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts on the points of bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of the landlady.

3. It emerges from record that a shop situate at Mohalla Fatehganj, city Faizabad was let out by the landlady to the father of the present petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 20. On 27.9.1985, an application for releasing the shop, accommodation in dispute was filed by the landlady Smt. Khatoon u/s 21(1)(a) of the Act before the prescribed authority. It was indicated in the said application that the landlady had six sons-Akeel Ahmad aged 38 years, Wakil Ahmad aged 35 years, Aleem Ahmad aged 31 years, Anis Ahmad aged 29 years, Sharif Ahmad aged 24 years and Mohammad Raseed aged 18 years. The landlady had a large family. Her sons had completed their education and they were requiring the shop in question for establishing their own business of selling utensils. The landlady had demonstrated various facts in support of her bona fide and genuine need for the shop.

4. In addition to above facts, the landlady had further submitted before the prescribed authority that the shop in question was very old; its roof was leaking and the same was in dilapidated condition. She wanted to get the shop demolished and raise a new construction over the land. The landlady had further submitted that the petitioner-tenant Sarju Prasad was not occupying the shop in question. He was working as Munim-cum-Clerk in a firm Bholanath Saligram, Fatehganj, Faizabad. He was a full-time servant of the said firm. He was making illegal demand of Rs. 20,000 from the landlady for vacating the said shop. Accordingly a notice was served on the tenant on 23.7.1984. The tenant refused to vacate the shop in question, vide his reply dated 15.1.1985. As per the landlady, her need for the shop was genuine and bona fide.

5. The tenant resisted the application for release and vacation. He submitted that the landladys sons were comfortably settled with their business. According to him, the landlady had purchased three shops in the main market of Faizabad city from Smt. Savitri Devi, Ram Prasad and Ram Behari. Two of the shops were being used by the landlady and one had been let out. The landlady's elder sons Aleem Ahmad, Sharif Ahmad and Mohammad Raseed were carrying on their own business from the shops in their possession. The tenant had specifically denied the need of the landlady and filed some documents, maps and other evidence in support of his above submissions. He had laid much stress that he was doing business in the shop for about 35 years and had earned a goodwill. According to him, he needed the shop to settle his son Shyam. Dev in business. Looking to the question of comparative hardships, the tenant would have suffered greater hardships in comparison to the landlady. The Advocate Commissioner had found two bags of wheat and several bags of Arhar, maize and rice In the shop in question. The Advocate Commissioner had reported that the landlady's sons were doing their business from three shops. As per petitioner, the impugned judgments a