JUDGMENT :

Saral Srivastava, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The respondent has filed release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for eviction of the petitioner from a shop situated at Mohalla Jatepur Dharmshala Bajar, Tehsil Sadar, District Gorakhpur. The needs set up by the landlord is that his wife is running Nursery English Medium School for Class-I to VIII in the name of Ajnam Samfran Academy. The wife of the respondent is Principal of the school and the petitioner is Manager of the said school. It is further stated that the son of the respondent is running a software business. The petitioner is not in employment and he wants to establish stationery shop in the said shop to augment income of the family.

3. The release application has been contested by the petitioner contending therein that the house of the petitioner is situated in Mohalla Jatepur Dakshini Dharamshala Bazar, Gorakhpur and also ten thousand square feet land is lying vacant near his house. The wife of respondent is running Ajnam Samfran Academy imparting education from Class-I to VIII, and 700 to 800 students are enrolled in the said school and fees of one student is about Rs. 1500/-. Thus earning of the plaintiff is about 8 to 10 lakh, therefore, bona fide needs set up by the respondents is not genuine.

4. The Prescribed Authority has framed as many as three issues. With respect to the issue No. 2 i.e. bonafide need, the Prescribed Authority has recorded finding that bonafide need of the landlord is to be seen in the context of release application and after considering the evidence on record the Prescribed Authority held that the respondent has no engagement except he is Manager of Ajnam Samfran Academy and the shop in question is the only proper place where he can establish his stationary business to augment the income of family. On the issue of comparative hardship, the Prescribed Authority held that on the basis of material on record, comparative hardship lay in favour of respondents inasmuch as the petitioner-tenant has not averred that during the pendency of the release application, he has made effort to search out any other shop. The Prescribed Authority has further recorded the finding that the landlord cannot be denied possession of the property on the ground that tenant business should run properly, and as there is no other alternative accommodation available to the respondent to start stationery business, he allowed the release application.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Rent Appeal No. 4 of 2018. The Appellate Court also affirmed the judgement of the Prescribed Authority.

6. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the finding on the issue Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. bonafide need and comparative hardship is perverse and against the record. He submits that the Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Court has not given due consideration to the Rule 16 (2) (a) & (c) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

8. The needs set up by the landlord-respondent is that he want to establish a stationery shop in question to establish himself as well as to augment the income of the family. The Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority while considering the issue of bonafide need has recorded finding on the basis of evidence on record that the respondent-landlord has no other engagement except he is manager of Ajnam Samfran Academy, therefore, he want to utilize his free time and establish stationery shop to enhance the income of the family. Further the Prescribed Authority has recorded finding that bonafide need is to be seen in the context of application filed by the landlord and not in terms of any other application which he has instituted. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not e