The subjective choice of the landlord in deciding which accommodation he requires and the need for the landlord to settle himself or his family properly as a bonafide need.

JUDGMENT :

Siddhartha Varma, J.

This writ petition has been filed for the quashing of the judgement and order dated 3.8.2017 passed by the Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 80 of 2012 (Kamal Gupta vs. Praveen Kumar Jain) and for the quashing of the order dated 31.8.2018 passed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 158 of 2017 (Praveen Kumar Jain vs. Kamal Gupta).

2. The respondent landlord had filed a Release Application for getting the shop no. 74 (part of old building no. 726) P.L. Sharma Road, Meerut City, released stating that the shop was bonafidely required for settling his son Sri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta as a Chartered Accountant (C.A.). He stated that he had also filed a Release Application for getting the shop no. 73 P.L. Sharma Road, released with an idea that the shop no. 73 and 74 could be joined and his son Sri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta could start his practice of a Chartered Accountant from the two shops. Further case of the applicant in the Release Application was that the son of the landlord was married and had two children. Since the son of the petitioner landlord had no place for practising accountancy, the release of the shop was essential. The tenant-petitioner had contested the Release Application and had stated amongst various other things that the landlord did not require the shop bonafidely. The son was not practising as a Chartered Accountant and it was alleged that he was not even trained as a Chartered Accountant and that he was running a furniture business alongwith his father, the landlord. Further allegation was that the landlord had other accommodations where he could have settled his son. Further the petitioner had also submitted that he had been doing his business of Parag Milk Parlour and was earning his livelihood from the shop in question and if he vacated the shop the hardship he would be facing would be much greater than the hardship the landlord was facing.

3. The Prescribed Authority dealt with the question of bonafide need and comparative hardship and found that the shop in question was bonafidely required by the landlord and that the comparative hardship because of the staying of the tenant was greater to the landlord. The petitioner filed an appeal which again was dismissed. Hence the instant writ petition.

4. Learned counsel made his oral submissions and also submitted his written arguments. Learned counsel submitted that the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was a beneficial legislation which was enacted for the protection of the tenant and every provision of it had to be interpreted in such a manner so as to protect the tenant from any unscrupulous/rapacious landlord. In this regard, the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the following decisions:-2000 (1) RCR 484 (SC) : Liaq Ahmed and Others vs. Shri Habeeb-Ur-Rehman, 2001 (2) RCR 323 :(Laxmidas Bapudas Darbar vs. Smt. Rudravva), 1994 (1) RCR 329 (SC): (Gopal Chandra Ghosh vs. Smt. Renu Bala Majumdar).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the bonafide need of a landlord was not a mere desire or only a pretext to evict the tenant. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon 2005 (1) RCR 284 : Adil Jamshed Frenchman (D) by Lrs. vs. Sardar Dastur Schools Trust & Ors.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that when the petitioner had other accommodations where he could have settled his son as a Charted Accountant then there was no requirement to evict the tenant of the shop in question. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon 1980 Allahabad Rent Cases 134 : Sri Ramesh Ji Nigam and others v. The District Judge, Kanpur and others.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the end submitted that the decision reported in 2012 (30) LCD 1746 (Mohammad Islam vs. Additional District Judge and Others) was not applicable in the present case and, therefore, should not have been relied upon by the Courts below.

8. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord who did not file any counte