Point of Law : It is required on the part of petitioner to search accommodation after filing the release application and in the present case there is no dispute that the petitioner had never made any effort to search alternative accommodation.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. This is a landlord's writ petition assailing an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Mathura dated 16.08.2010, passed in P.A. Appeal No.19 of 2018, partly allowing the tenant's appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. By the order impugned, the Additional District Judge, sitting as the Appellate Authority under the Act last mentioned, has set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 04.08.2008, under Section 21(1)(a), but upheld the part, by which release has been granted under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act, subject to the tenant's right of re-entry.

2. The demised premises here is a 200 year-old shop, wherein Ram Babu, the sole original respondent to this petition, was a tenant since the year 1962. He was in occupation of the shop situate at Govardhan Tehsil, Mathura at a monthly rent of Rs.30/-. The shop was part of a larger property owned by the family of the sole petitioner, Naveen Chanda Sharma. Naveen Chanda Sharma received to his exclusive share the shop last mentioned in a partition brought about through Suit No.34 of 1988, Arvind Kumar vs. Naveen Chanda Sharma and others. Besides the aforesaid shop, the landlord also received in partition one room and another residential accommodation. The shop under reference shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'demised shop'. The landlord moved a composite application before the Prescribed Authority, Mathura under Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short, 'the Act'), seeking release of the demised shop on the ground of his bona fide need to set up business of a general merchant/ grocer, besides asking for release on ground that the demised shop was so dilapidated that it required demolition and new construction, which would then be utilised by the landlord to establish his proposed business of a general merchant. The application aforesaid was instituted in the month of November, 2002 and numbered on the file of the Prescribed Authority, Mathura as P.A. Case No.50 of 2002.

3. The bona fide need set up by the landlord was that he bona fide needed the demised shop to earn his livelihood. It was alleged that the landlord was an electrician and used to undertake jobs connected to the trade outside Govardhan However, he suffered a fracture to his foot, in consequence of which he had to give up his trade. He now stayed at Govardhan. He further said that he has no other shop to establish his business. In the circumstances, the landlord claimed that he is much troubled mentally, besides facing financial hardship. He requires the demised shop to establish his business. In addition, it was pleaded that the demised shop is in a dilapidated condition with its eastern and western walls completely gone and the northern and southern walls delicately holding. The roof has also fallen down. The structure is more than 200 year-old and is not fit for use by any person.

4. It was pleaded that the landlord had sufficient funds with him, which he would employ in getting a new shop constructed after demolishing the standing structure. It was also pleaded that the tenant-respondent would not suffer much hardship by comparison to the landlord, in case he were asked to vacate the shop, because he does not do any business there. He is holding on to the shop because it is occupied by him on a meager rent. One son of the tenant by the name Kedar is engaged in the trade of tailoring and works as a tailor. He has no need for the said ship. The landlord has a family, comprising his wife, a son and a daughter to support. It was pleaded further that the landlord asked the tenant to vacate the demised shop a number of times over, but the tenant-respondent did not oblige, because he wants to extort money for the purpose. The tenant-respondent refused to vacate finally in the month of November, 2002, which led the landlord to institute these proceedings.

5. The tenant filed a written statement denying the landlord's allegati