The right of a landlord to settle his son in independent business and the consideration of subsequent events in eviction/release proceedings.

S.U. Khan, J.

This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by original landlord Respondent No. 3, Kashmiri Lal, since deceased and survived by legal representatives, on the ground of bona fide need u/s 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 70 of 1986 on the file of Prescribed Authority/Munsif, Moradabad.

2. The property in dispute is a shop situate at Station Road, Moradabad rent of which is Rs. 100 per month. Landlord pleaded that he required the shop in dispute for settling his son Shyam Sunder (now Respondent No. 3/2) in business. Landlord further stated that he was carrying on business in a shop owned by him, however, his son Shyam Sunder was not interested in the said business and he intended to settle him in an independent business. The tenant pleaded that landlord owned some other shops also. However, according to the landlord the said shops were already in tenancy occupation of other tenants. Amin was directed by the Prescribed Authority to inspect the shop in dispute. Amin reported that at the time of his inspection there were no substantial goods and merchandise in the shop in dispute. The Prescribed Authority, through order dated 18.11.1987 allowed the release application. Against the said judgment and order tenant-Petitioner filed Rent Control Appeal No. 40 of 1987. IInd A.D.J., Moradabad dismissed the appeal on 13.9.1988, hence this writ petition.

3. Prescribed Authority had directed the landlord to pay, Rs. 1,000 as compensation to the tenant.

4. In the impugned orders, I do not find least error. Every landlord is entitled to settle his son in independent business. He cannot be compelled to accommodate his son in the business which is being run by him. In this regard reference may be made to Sushila Vs. IInd Addl. District Judge, Banda and Others, AIR 2003 SC 780 and Akhileshwar Kumar and Others Vs. Mustaqim and Others, AIR 2003 SC 532. The other shops belonging to the landlord were found by both the courts below to be let out to other tenants since long.

5. However, this writ petition has mainly been argued on the basis of subsequent events brought on record through supplementary-affidavit filed alongwith application - dated 10.9.2002 by the tenant-Petitioner. Supplementary counter-affidavit to the said affidavit has also been filed.

6. The original landlord, Respondent No. 3 Kashmiri Lal died on 28.11.1988 and was substituted by his widow, two sons, i.e., Shyam Sunder and Suraj Bajaj and two daughters. In the supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that Shyam Sunder, for whose need release application was filed, was using the shop of his father after his death. It was also stated that apart from that shop Shyam Sunder had taken on rent another shop near Imperial Cinema and in the said shop also same business of cloth was being run. It was also stated that Shyam Sunder had also started A.V. Finance Company in Super Bazar in Mohalla Tarikhana a complex had been constructed by him containing 20 to 25 shops in the name and style of Nirmala Plaza. In the supplementary counter-affidavit, it was stated that the shop on which father/original landlord was doing business was being looked after by Suraj Bajaj, the other son of the original landlord and the shop near Imperial Cinema was also taken on rent by Suraj Bajaj. It has further been stated that the Finance Company was also opened by Suraj Bajaj and from the income earned from the said business Suraj Bajaj had constructed the complex of shops containing 20 to 25 shops and Shyam Sunder had no concern therewith.

7. Original landlord Kashmiri Lal had also executed a Will, a true copy of which is Annexure-C.A. 1 to the counter-affidavit. In the said Will shop in dispute was bequeathed to Shyam Sundar. The shop in which landlord was carrying on his own business was bequeathed to his wife Smt. Mohini Bajaj. In respect of the said shop it was mentioned in para 2 of the Will that the original landlord was