IMPORTANT POINT
The legal representatives of a deceased landlord can pursue eviction applications based on their own needs under Section 21(7) of the Act, even if the original need was personal.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

This is a tenant's writ petition, arising out of an order of release passed 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) by both the Authorities below.

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

An application under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) ('the Act of 1972' for short) was moved by Mukesh Kumar Sahu against Ram Kishor, Ram Narayan Gupta, Brij Kishor alias Vijjan and Ballo, all sons of the late Radhey Shyam Gupta on allegations that Sahu was the owner and landlord of a shop bearing Municipal No. 198, situate at Mohalla Parwan, District Jhansi, where Ram Narayan Gupta and his three brothers, above named, were tenants at a rent of Rs. 16.56/- per month. Sahu said that he had no shop available with him to do business. He earned his livelihood, in the absence of a place of business, by selling mobile phone recharge vouchers for Airtel and Idea telecommunication service providers, moving from one shop to another for the purpose. According to the landlord, he wanted to establish himself in the business of hosiery, and to do that, he bona fide needed the shop above detailed in the tenancy occupation of the petitioner, Ram Kishor and his three brothers, respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to this petition. Ram Kishor, the sole petitioner and respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, his brothers shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'tenants' unless the context necessitates a different or individual reference.

3. It was also pleaded by the landlord that the former owner and landlord of Shop No. 198 aforesaid was his mother Smt. Poonabai, who had passed away, and after her demise, he had become the owner and landlord thereof. This had happened in the manner that the landlord and his brothers had done a family settlement to divide the property left behind by their parents amongst themselves, where Shop No. 198 aforesaid ('demised shop' for short) had fallen to his share. Apart from the demised shop, the landlord had, for his residence, a house bearing Premises Nos. 95 and 108, which, in fact, is one house, but the Nagar Nigam, Jhansi had assigned two premises numbers to it. The tenants had no need for the demised shop. They had with them, on the Kotwali Road, Jhansi, a non-residential building, besides two vacant shops. One of these shops is occupied by one Ram Nath, who does the business of selling incense sticks (agarbatti) which he manufactures in his house. The tenants can easily rent another shop, or buy one. The landlord is without any source of livelihood. He has no permanent source of income. It is a very unstable occupation that he undertakes by selling mobile phone recharge vouchers, moving from shop to shop, to make his ends meet. The landlord wants to do business of hosiery so that he may have a stable source of livelihood. His need is bona fide and pressing. The landlord also said in his application that he is ready to pay compensation to the tenants as required by the law. It is also averred that the tenants would not face any hardship, if evicted.

4. Amongst the tenants, who are arrayed as opposite parties to the application for release, Ram Kishor filed objections, bearing Paper No. 28A1. He asserted that abutting the demised shop, there were Shop Nos. 199 and 200, besides other shops, of which the landlord's mother, Smt. Poonabai was the owner. She had instituted a suit, being S.C.C. Suit No. 59 of 1992 for eviction of the tenants, which was dismissed and a revision carried against the decree to the High Court too was dismissed. It is also pleaded that the landlord's mother, Smt. Poonabai had moved an application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act of 1972 againts the tenants during her lifetime, being Application No. 69 of 1992, which came to be dismissed on 6.12.1999. In the said application for release,