JUDGMENT :

1. The counsel for the parties had been heard and also submitted their written arguments after hearing was concluded in the case. The written arguments submitted by the counsel are part of the record of the case. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit and the counsel for the respondent suggested that the case be heard and decided without a counter affidavit and, therefore, the case was finally heard without calling for a counter affidavit from the respondents.

2. The present writ petition arises from proceedings instituted under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 which shall hereinafter, in short, be referred as, ‘Act, 1972’. The property in dispute in the present writ petition as well as in the proceedings before the courts below is Shop No. 6/56/1 in Belanganj, Chhatta Ward, District Agra and shall hereinafter, in short, be referred as, ‘the Shop’. The shop is a part of property / building No. 6/56, Belanganj, Chhatta Ward, District Agra. The shop is on the ground floor. The respondents are admittedly the landlords of the shop and the petitioner is a tenant at the rate of Rs.29/-per month. The respondents – landlords filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, 1972 for eviction of the tenant – petitioner from the shop on the ground that the shop was bona fide required by the landlords for business purposes. It was further stated in the application that the shop was in a dilapidated condition and was, therefore, required to be demolished and reconstructed. It was stated in the application that the applicant no. 1, i.e., the respondent no. 1 in the writ petition, is a law graduate and intends to start her legal practice in Agra on the first floor of the shop and as there was no access to the first floor of the shop, therefore, a stair case had to be constructed after demolishing the ground floor which was in the tenancy of the petitioner. The bona fide need pleaded by applicant nos. 2 to 4, i.e., respondent nos. 2 to 4 in the present petition, was that the said applicants were suffering loss in their business in Rajasthan because of a change in government policy regarding mining and thus wished to start a new business in Agra from the disputed shop which was situated on the main road. It was further stated in the application that the landlords – respondents did not have any other building from where they could do their business. It was alleged in the application that the disputed shop was not being used by the tenant but was being retained by him only to extract heavy premium from the landlords in lieu of vacating the shop. The landlords also pleaded comparative hardship in their favour on the ground that the tenant – petitioner was the owner of another building No. 6/12A where he could shift his business. On the said facts the landlords prayed that an order of eviction be passed against the tenant and the possession of the shop be restored to the landlords. On the aforesaid application, P.A. Case No. 65 of 2012 (Smt. Sushila Devi Jain vs. Sri Pawan Kumar Jain) was registered in the court of Prescribed Authority / Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 05, District Agra. The aforesaid court shall hereinafter in short be referred as, ‘Prescribed Authority’.

3. The tenant – petitioner filed his written statement / objections to the application of the landlords – respondents denying the allegations made in the application. In his objections, the tenant – petitioner pleaded that he was operating his business styled as M/s Bulbul Footwear from the shop since 1984 and the shop was the only source of income for the petitioner and his family. It was further stated in the objections that the landlords were not residing in Agra but were permanently residing in Rajasthan since the last 30 years after having established their business in Rajasthan. It was alleged in the objections that the landlords were not suffering any