JUDGMENT :

1. This is a tenant's writ petition, challenging an order of release and eviction under Section 21(1)(a) of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (for short, ‘the Act’) passed concurrently by the two Authorities below.

2. Shyam Sundar Gupta moved an application for release and eviction under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority (Civil Judge, Sr. Div., Shahjahanpur), seeking release of the shop, detailed at the foot of the application and currently in the tenancy occupation of Smt. Kusum Lata, the petitioner. The application was moved by Shyam Sundar Gupta, hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord' with a case that the shop, subject matter of proceedings (for short, 'the demised shop') was exclusively owned by the landlord. The demised shop had fallen to the landlord's share in a family settlement on 24.04.1998, a fact admitted to Smt. Kusum Lata. Smt. Kusum Lata has, later on in proceedings before the Courts below, been referred to as Smt. Kusum Gupta. It is clarified that Smt. Kusum Lata and Smt. Kusum Gupta are one and the same person. For the sake of convenience, Smt. Kusum Gupta shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the tenant'.

3. It is the landlord's case that the tenant is in occupation of the demised shop at a monthly rent of Rs.800/-since 27.11.1987. The landlord's father, Radhey Shyam Gupta had executed a registered lease dated 27.11.1987 in the tenant's favour, letting out the demised shop for a term of ten years with a stipulation that at the end of every ten years, if the term of the tenancy is enlarged, there would be an escalation in rent for the next ten years by 10% automatically. The landlord's father passed away in the year 1997 and the landlord, in the events to follow, did not renew or extend the lease. In consequence, the term of the lease has not been renewed and the tenancy has outlived its life. It is no longer current. It was also pleaded by the landlord that the demised shop was constructed, admittedly prior to the year 1987 and is, accordingly, governed by the provisions of the Act. The landlord is employed with the Ordnance Factory at Shahjahanpur and scheduled to retire on 30.06.2011. He is serving on the post of Inspector (Tailoring). The landlord asserted that post retirement, he would estimatedly draw a pension of Rs.5000/-per mensem. During service, the landlord has drawn excessively from his Provident Fund to meet contingent expenditure, according to requirements of the family. The said withdrawal has been made in advance. Likewise, the residue of the landlord's gratuity is a negligible sum. Upon his retirement, the landlord requires the demised shop to keep himself busy, augment his income to secure himself against age-related ailments, to earn money for defraying the expenses of his daughter's wedding, and above all, to settle his younger son in business, where there is tough competition to face. It is on all the above counts that the landlord needs the demised shop bona fide.

4. The landlord has, in his family, besides himself, his aged mother, his wife Smt. Vijay Laxmi, two sons Saurabh Gupta and Tushar Gupta and a daughter Km. Shweta Gupta. The landlord's wife is a teacher at the Baba Vishwanath Junior High School, Town Hall Road, Shahjahanpur on a monthly salary of Rs.5000/-. The elder son Saurabh Gupta is a Public Relations Officer with the Bajaj Allianz and posted at NOIDA. He is a married man, who receives a total monthly salary of Rs.18,000/-. He resides with his wife at NOIDA. Given the dearness in the present times, he does not extend any financial help to the landlord nor is he capable of doing that. The landlord's other son, Tushar Gupta has passed his Intermediate Examination and after retirement, the landlord would not be in a position to educate his son further. Accordingly, he needs the demised shop to enable his son to be by his side in order to establish and run a shop,