IMPORTANT POINT
The bona fide need of a landlord for eviction under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act is a factual determination that should not be interfered with by the courts, and tenants cannot dictate the manner in which landlords satisfy their needs.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Kumar, J.

1. As the questions involved in the present two writ petitions are the same and inter-connected, therefore, both the writ petitions are decided together.

2. The WRIT-A No. 1000071 of 2013 has been filed by the landlord with the following prayer:-

(a) A writ direction or order in the nature of Certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 20/02/2013 passed by opposite party no. 1 contained in Annexure No. 1 of the writ petition.

3. The WRIT-A No. 1000077 of 2014 has been filed by the tenant with the following prayer:-

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 20.02.2013, passed by the Special Judge, Ayodhya Prakran Additional District Judge Lucknow partly allowing the Rent Appeal No. 30 of 2010 and judgment and order dated 05.04.2010, passed by Prescribed Authority / First Additional District Judge, Small Causes, Court No. 18, Lucknow relating to P.A. Case No. 19 of 2008, as contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in WRIT -A No. 1000071 of 2013 i.e. the landlord has submitted that the respondent no. 3 is in the tenancy of the ground floor of the building of the petitioner situated at Aminabad, Lucknow since 1941 on the rent of Rs. 425 per month. The petitioner has two sons and to establish them independently in the business, the shop rented to the respondent no. 3 was required hence an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), 1972 (in short " Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972") was moved before the Prescribed Authority and the Prescribed Authority accepted the bonafide need of the petitioner and granted an order in favour of the petitioner i.e. landlord, directing the respondent no. 3 to vacate the premises.

5. It is further submitted that against the order of the Prescribed Authority, the respondent no. 3 preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972 which was decided in favour of the tenant/respondent no. 3 by placing reliance that earlier petitioner had issued a notice on 02.06.2003 for enhancement of rent which was not accepted by the respondent no. 3. Again a request was made in 2006 to enhance the rent @ Rs. 25 per square feet and total area of tenancy is 2150/-square feet. The said request of the petitioner was turned down by the respondent no. 2 on 7.12.2007 and again reiterated for the enhancement of rent from Rs.425/- to Rs.20,000/-per month, which was not accepted by the petitioner on 10.12.2007. After three months an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972 was moved by the petitioner on 10.3.2008 showing the bonafide need i.e. area is required for establishing his sons for running their business independently.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Appellate Court had come to the conclusion that the said application for release moved after three months from the date of rejection of offer of enhancement of rent by the tenant i.e. respondent no. 3 would show that the need was not bonafide, it was artificial but at the same time in the last part of its judgment had accepted the need of the petitioner rejecting the submissions made by the tenant i.e. respondent no. 3 that suggestion made by the tenant that the applicant i.e. a petitioner is man of sound financial condition and is capable of finding out appropriate commercial buildings/space for his sons to run their business and in the ground floor apart from the area under the tenancy of the respondent no. 3 the other shops are also available which was not accepted by the Appellate Court by giving a finding that the applicant is residing at the first floor of the building along with his family. The said building is situated in commercial area hence ground floor is more proper and convenient for running a business for his sons and as