IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a landlord's bona fide need for their property does not require absolute necessity, and long-term tenancy does not preclude eviction if the landlord's need is genuine.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai, J.

The above-mentioned writ petitions were connected by different orders of this Court and have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

2. The writ petitions have been filed by tenants and arise out of orders of release passed in proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1972'). The petitioner in Writ - A Nos. 15284 of 2017 and 15287 of 2017 and the petitioner in Writ - A Nos. 17499 of 2017 and 17502 of 2017 are brothers. The premises involved in the present petitions are shops and northern part of House No. 52/43-A at Nai Dal Mandi, Kanpur Nagar. There are roads approximately 30 ft. to 40 ft. wide on the east, west and northern side of the building. Parts of the building were also let out to three other tenants, namely, Ashok Kumar Gupta, Rajiv Gupta and Om Prakash Rathore. The dimensions of the shop let out to the petitioner in Writ - A Nos. 15284 of 2017 and 15287 of 2017 are 9.6 ft. x 29 ft. and the dimensions of the shop let out to the petitioner in Writ - A Nos. 17499 of 2017 and 17502 of 2017 is 7.9 ft. x 29.9 ft. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the co-owners and landlord/landlady of the demised premises and shall hereinafter be referred as landlords. Respondent No. 2 is the mother of respondent No. 1. The demised premises are on the ground floor of the house and it transpires from the records annexed with the petitions that the first floor is used by the respondents-landlords as their residence. It also transpires from the records that approximately 19.11 ft. x 39 ft. is in the possession of respondent No. 1 who is a doctor by profession and is used by him as his medical clinic as well as a garage.

3. The respondents-landlords filed applications under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, 1972 seeking release of the shops in their favour. The need set-up by the respondent-landlord was that the premises were required to upgrade the medical clinic of respondent No. 1 with modern diagnostic facilities and to provide amenities to his patients and to open coaching classes to be run by the wife of respondent No. 1 as well as for respondent No. 2 who intends to start her independent business. It was stated in the application that because of lack of amenities to his patients and lack of diagnostic tools, the respondent No. 1 was forced to refer his patients to different hospitals. It was further stated in the application that the respondent No. 2, who is the mother of respondent No. 1, does not want to be dependent on her son and, therefore, needs space to open a shop from where she could start her independent business and have her independent earnings. It was further stated in the application that the wife of respondent No. 1 was an M.B.A. (Human Resource and Finance) and intends to open a coaching institute for which one room was required for her office while two rooms were required to start coaching classes. It was also stated in the application that the wife of respondent No. 1 has no space to park her vehicle as the vehicle of respondent No. 1 is parked in the garage available in the building and, therefore, parking space is also required for the wife of respondent No. 1. It was stated in the application that the tenants were quite prosperous and can purchase other properties to open their shops and can also get any other shop allotted where they can shift their business. On the aforesaid plea, the respondents-landlords pleaded for release of the demised premises and eviction of the petitioners from the same. It is relevant to note that identical applications setting up the same need, as set-up in the present cases, were also filed by the respondents for release of shops in the tenancy of the three other tenants referred earlier.

4. The petitioners-tenants filed their objections in which they admitted that the clinic of respondent No. 1 was being run in the buildin