JUDGMENT :

1. This is a landlord's writ petition, arising out of proceedings for release 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').

2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are these :

Natthoomal son of Daulatram instituted proceedings against Giriraj Dharan son of Surajbhan for release under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, with the allegations that he is the owner and landlord of a shop, bearing Municipal Premises No. 127/82-A, Kachchi Sarak, Shahganj Darwaza, District Mathura. Giriraj Dharan is a tenant in the said shop at the rate of Rs.70/-per month, excluding taxes. Giriraj Dharan has been in arrears of rent since 01.08.1999. Natthoomal, who shall hereinafter be called 'the landlord', has a shop located to the south of the shop in the tenancy occupation of Giriraj Dharan. The shop in Giriraj Dharan’s tenancy shall hereinafter be called 'the demised shop'.

3. The landlord carries on the business of a jeweller in his shop aforesaid, dealing in silver jewellery. Along with the landlord, one of his sons, Rupesh Kumar also does business in the same shop as the landlord. The landlord's elder son, Pankaj and the one younger to him, Rupesh Kumar are married. Pankaj has been blessed with two children, but has no gainful occupation. The family's peace for the landlord has been a casualty on account of disputes between the womenfolk, all of which has made it difficult for Pankaj to carry on business in the same shop as the landlord. The landlord has asserted that the shop where he does business is not big enough to take care of the requirements of the landlord and his two sons, all at once. The landlord's son Pankaj has good experience of a jeweller's business in silver ornaments and he can carry on this business. The landlord has the necessary capital to set up his son Pankaj in independent business. The landlord has another shop, bearing No. 127/ 82-C, wherein there is an old tenant, Mohan Lal in occupation. Apart from these three shops, the landlord does not have any other, where he may set up his son in independent business. It is pleaded by the landlord that he requires the demised shop to be released on account of the bona fide need that he has for the said shop in order to establish his son Pankaj in independent business.

4. Apart from Pankaj, the landlord has two other sons, Rupesh and Ghanshyam. Ghanshyam is not married so far. He has discontinued his studies and is otherwise competent to establish his own business. Giriraj Dharan, the tenant in the demised shop, has another tenanted shop, situate at Bairagpura, Mathura. Giriraj Dharan primarily carries on his business in the shop at Bairagpura. In addition, Giriraj Dharan has in his ancestral home, which is located close-by to the demised shop, three vacant shops of his own. In the event the demised shop is released, the tenant would not suffer greater hardship compared to what the landlord would, if the demised shop were refused to be released. It is also averred by the landlord that he conveyed his bona fide need to Giriraj Dharan, asking him to vacate the shop, but he declined. Compelled by his refusal, the landlord instituted proceedings for release as aforesaid through the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act on 04.01.2002 before the Prescribed Authority. The release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 3 of 2002 on the file of the Prescribed Authority.

5. Giriraj Dharan put in a written statement, contesting the landlord's case for release. It was pleaded by him that the landlord and all his sons carry on business in silver in the shop located to the south of the demised shop. Their business is of trading in silver. It has been asserted by Giriraj Dharan that no cause of action has arisen to the landlord to seek release of the demised shop. He has no need for the same and has sufficient property. He has a big shop, where the landlo