IMPORTANT POINT
A landlord's bona fide need for premises does not require proof of dire necessity, and tenants must demonstrate efforts to find alternative accommodation to establish greater hardship.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Kumar, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2008 passed in Rent Appeal No. 01 of 2007 in re Shyam Chandra and another versus Ram Gopal and also the judgment and order dated 13.02.2007 passed in P.A. Case No. 249 of 1997 by the Court of Prescribed Authority/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 17, Sultanpur; with a further prayer to direct respondent no. 3/private respondent to vacate and handover the peaceful possession of tenanted portion.

2. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner no. 2 has died and her legal heirs/representatives have been substituted as petitioner no. 2/1 and 2/2 as per the order dated 24.02.2011.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the respondent no. 3/private respondent is the tenant in the shop of which the petitioner is the landlord. The respondent no. 3 is a tenant since the time of father of petitioner no. 1.

4. It is further submitted that an application was preferred by the petitioners/landlords, under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972) for evicting the tenants i.e. respondent no. 3 from the disputed shop and to release the same in favour of the petitioners as the petitioner no. 1, who is married and having children and the ingress and outgress of the house of the petitioner is also through the same shop. There is also no space for storing the stock which was lying in the same.

5. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 had filed a written statement mentioning therein that need shown by the petitioners in their application of release under Section 21 (1) (a) is not bona-fide and genuine as the petitioners have purchased two houses separately during the pendency of the release application and using one premises of the house as a godown. It is further stated in the written statement that another tenant Dhulai Ram had vacated the shop during the pendency of the case and the same has been joined by the petitioners in his shop so, there is no requirement for shop.

6. It is further submitted that the Prescribed Authority/Additional C.J.M. had rejected the application of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have a basement which can be used as a godown ignoring completely that the respondent no. 3 in its written statement had not come with a case that the petitioners are in possession of the basement which can be used as a godown and in absence of any evidence, the finding has been given.

7. It is further submitted that the subsequent development would not affect the right of the petitioners regarding bona-fide personal need as mentioned in the application preferred for release of the property in their favour and in support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nidhi versus Ram Kripal Sharma (dead through Legal Representatives) reported in (2017) 5 SCC 640, wherein it has been held that the subsequent development will not affect the petitioners as the rights of the parties has been crystalized.

8. It is further submitted that the respondent had never ever made any effort for searching for any alternative accommodation after filing of the release application by the petitioners so the comparative hardship is in favour of the petitioners. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment in the case of Smt. Bibi Begum versus Dr. Awadhesh Narain and others reported in 2008 SCC Online All 1069 : (2009) 75 ALR 277 and Dharmendra Singh Sonkar versus Additional District and Sessions Judge, reported in 2016 SCC Online All 3003; (2016) 115 ALR 739 : (2016) 3 All LJ 23.

9. It is further submitted that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and the court and the tenant has no concern to di