The concept of bona fide need requires a genuine desire for premises, and the landlord's choice of accommodation should be respected by the court.

JUDGMENT

Ashutosh Srivastava, J.

Heard Shri. Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. Ashutosh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant writ petition, at the instance of the tenant, has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 8.2.2023 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 66 of 2018 (Radha Kishan Golani v. Smt. Savitri Devi through her Lrs) whereby the appeal has been rejected as also the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority/Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Case No. 2 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been allowed.

3. The lis between the parties is with regard to a shop forming part of premises No. 111A/399, Ashok Nagar, Kanpur Nagar under the tenancy of the petitioner with monthly rent of Rs. 750/- per month. A release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by the respondent/landlady Smt. Savirtri Devi setting up a need of the shop under the tenancy of the petitioner for her son Dinesh Kumar and his two adult sons Amit Kumar and Sumit Kumar for starting an electric repair shop. In the release application, it was stated that in the premises 111A/399 Ashok Nagar, four shops were existing. Two shops were in occupation of her two sons Jagdish Kumar and Girish Kumar. The third shop was under the tenancy of Prem Shanker Gupta and the 4th shop under the tenancy of the petitioner was required to be released for the need set up. The petitioner appeared in the proceedings and filed his written statement stating therein that there are five shops and not four shops as alleged in the release application, the petitioner is carrying on the business of repairing of electric equipment in the shop in question in the name and style of "Raghu Electronic" and the entire family is dependent upon the earnings from the shop in question, the landlady/respondent is in possession of three shops and the need set up is not bona fide.

4. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that before the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner filed an affidavit that one of the tenants of the landlady/respondents, namely, K. K. Raj had vacated the shop under his tenancy and in the said shop, was in possession of the son Dinesh Kumar, who was carrying on business in the name and style of "Little Heart". In addition to the shop vacated by Shri. K. K. Raj, the other son, namely, Jagdish Prasad is in possession of another premises being House No.111A/385, Ashok Nagar, Kanpur purchased in the name of Neera Mishra, his wife vide sale deed dated 19.8.2009. Apart from the above, it was also stated that the landlady/respondent was possessed of another shop vacated by earlier sole tenant Kallu Prasad and that she had constructed another shop in the ground floor of the premises. It was also stated that the son of Dinesh Kumar Mishra, namely, Amit Kumar Mishra was employed with M/s Vishal Video & Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Authorized distributors for Gionee Mobile and is now working with M-Phone Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Noida and the younger son of Dinesh Kumar, namely, Sumit Kumar Mishra is working as Deputy Manager in M/s Intex Technology Ltd., Lucknow. The petitioner also brought on record the Panchshala for the period 1978-1987 and 1987-1992 to show that as many as six shops were shown at the ground floor. It is contended that the Prescribed Authority without giving its due consideration to the availability of alternative shops with the landlady/respondent and without properly adjudicating the bona fide need, with the preconceived notion proceeded to allow the release application vide its order dated 15.10.2018.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 15.10.2018, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act being Rent Appeal No. 66 of 2018. The Appellate Authority under t