JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J.
1. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction A release proceedings initiated by landlady-respondent No. 3, Shrimati Shanti, Devi Gupta, on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 49 of 1992 on the file of Prescribed Authority / Civil Judge, Firozabad.
2. Property in dispute is a shop dimensions of which are approximately 27 feet (frontage) and 24 feet (depth). During arguments a sketch map of the shop in dispute was filed by learned Counsel for the landlady, substantial correctness of which was not denied by the learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner. Rent of the shop in dispute is Rs. 574.75 per month.
3. In the release application it was stated that landlady was partner in M/S Advance Group of Industries, which is preparing high class quality glass wares, including fancy tumblers, flasks and wine glasses and other related items. It was stated by the landlady that her husband and sons were also partners of the said firm and that the firm had achieved goodwill not only in India but abroad also. It was also stated that the factory of the firm was situated in suburban area, hence she required the shop in dispute for establishing show room as the same being situated in Sadar Bazar, Firozabad was quite suitable for the said purpose. Prescribed Authority through judgment and order dated 9.7.1997 rejected the release application. Against the said judgment and order landlady filed Rent Control Miscellaneous appeal No. 33 of 1997. V A.D.J. Firozabad through judgment and order dated 31.7.2000 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority and released the shop in dispute in favour of the landlady, hence this writ petition.
4. The Prescribed Authority held that the accounts of the firm were not produced hence it was not proved that the business of the firm was of such a scale that it required show room in the main market. Appellate Court rightly reversed the said finding. The fact that the firm was manufacturing the glass items as stated in the release application was not denied. Need of a manufacturer for a show room in the main market can never be said to be not bonafide. Quantum of production is not much relevant unless it is alleged that virtually nothing is being manufactured.
5. In respect of comparative hardship landlady had brought on record that in several markets of Firozabad shops were available and Bata India Limited could take on rent any other shop and shift its business there. Appellate Court also observed that Bata India was an international Concern and it would not be difficult for it to have another shop on rent.
6. After hearing learned Counsel for both the parties I do not find any error in the finding of bonafide need recorded by the Appellate Court in favour of the landlady.
7. However, under Section 21(1) of the Act part release is permissible. Supreme Court in R.C. Kesarwani v. Dwarka Prasad 2002 (2) A.R.C. 298 has held that question of part release can also be considered for the first time by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction and for the said purpose it is not at all necessary to remand the matter. In my opinion, as the frontage of the shop is about 27 feet, hence shop in dispute can reasonably be divided in two portions.
8. Accordingly judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court is modified. Release application of the landlady is allowed in respect of half portion of the shop; in dispute. Western half portion is released in favour of the landlady. Eastern half portion is left in the tenancy occupation of the tenant-petitioner, rent of which shall be Rs. 2000/- per month, inclusive of water tax etc. No further amount shall be payable by the tenant (I have held in Khursheeda v. A.D.J. 2004 (2) A.R.C. 64 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act, writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent)
9. Shop must be divided in such manner that both the portions have equal frontage and depth. Landlady shall raise a wall in the middle of the shop accordingly. The tenant is directed to part with the possession of the released portion within three months, failing which landlady can take possession of the released portion through application under Section 23 of the Act. However, if within three months possession of the released portion is not handed over by the tenant to the landlady then since after three months till actual delivery of possession of the released portion tenant shall be liable to pay rent of the entire shop at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month.
10. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.