The landlord's need for release of premises cannot be dictated by the tenant, and the landlord is the best judge of his need. The court cannot advise the landlord on how to carry out his business or manage his affairs.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners have prayed for setting aside of order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 30.10.2021 and also the order passed by the District Judge, Unnao in Rent Appeal No.34 of 2001 dated 20 December 2021. It is the case of the petitioners that their predecessor in interest i e the husband of the Petitioner No.1 and father of Petitioner No.2 Late Surya Narayana Shukla was the tenant of two shops in Bajpai Building Part-B, Rajdhani Marg Shukla Ganj, Unnao, on rent at the rate of Rs.300 and Rs.400 respectively, a total of Rs.700/- per month. A release application was filed by Dr. Deshbandhu Bajpai, the Respondent No.3 regarding the two shops under Section 21(1) a of U.P. Act No.XIII of 1972. In the said release application the Respondent-Landlord stated that he was running a homeopathic clinic in his ancestral house at Kanpur Nagar but with the passage of time his children had grown and his son and also his daughter had completed their degree course in homoeopathic medicine. He wished to establish an independent clinic in the said shops as his house at Bhusatola Kanpur Nagar, being ancestral, was partitioned amongst three brothers and his present clinic was very small to accommodate him and also his children. It was stated that the two shops being adjacent to each other were appropriate for setting up independent clinic more so when there was sufficient vacant space available on the Southern side of the said shops in Bajpai Building. It was also stated by the Respondent that tenants have a big residential house in Anand Nagar, Shukla Ganj where they can also run their business. In fact the shops are mostly lying closed and the tenants do not do their business from there. The release application was moved on 24.05.2010.

2. On receiving notice the petitioners appeared and filed a written statement on 30 September 2011. In the written statement the petitioners had admitted the tenancy, the rate of rent and the relationship of landlord and tenant with regard to the shops in question, however, they disputed the contention of the Respondent landlord that he was having bonafide need of the two shops in question. It was also stated that the petitioners have no other means of livelihood except for the two shops in which they run their business as they are situated in commercial area whereas the house of the petitioner is very small, situated in a Gali/Byelane, and nearly 250 m away from the market area which was not suitable for running business. It was also stated that the landlord had not complied with the provisions of Rule 15 Sub-clause (2) of the U.P. Act No.XIII of 1972 as the release application was not duly verified. It was also stated that the landlord wanted to remove all tenants and demolish all shops and thereafter sell the land by carving out small plots as the land on which the two shops were situated had five other shops also which the landlord had got vacated on similar excuse and now there was enough space with the landlord to set up his independent clinic as alleged by him. Taking into account the said five already vacant shops the landlord would have 54 feet wide land on the roadside which was about 250 feet deep. It was also stated that the petitioners had been regularly depositing rent. Earlier the landlord had tried to dispossess them by moving an application for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent i.e. Rent Case No.5/1999. Such case was dismissed as the petitioners deposited rent before the Learned trial court. Revision No.1/2017 filed by the landlord against such order was pending. The Petitioner No.1 had filed an affidavit in support of their defence mentioning that the shops in question are best suited for running their business and there was no other place for the tenants to shift business as they had earned a good reputation and if they shift their business would suffer and they would face extreme hardship.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite s