JUDGMENT Sudhir Narain, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 27.8.1997, allowing the release application filed by the landlord-respondents under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (in short 'the Act') and the order of the appellate authority, respondent No. 1, dismissing the appeal on 13.10.1998.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the landlord-respondent Nos. 3 to 7 filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for release of the shop situated in a portion of premises No. 27/101. Jawahar Square, Meerganj. Allahabad against the petitioners who are its tenants on the averments that in a portion of the same building No. 27/101 Jawahar Square, Meerganj, Allahabad a partnership business of sale of sarees, suitings and shirtings. etc. is being carried on in the name and style of "M/s. Sarce Nagar" by Sri Ravindra Kumar Agarwal and Praveen Kumar Agarwal. in the Doochatti of the same shop, the business of sale of cut-pieces, matching blouse pieces and similar other materials is being carried on by Smt. Indra Agarwal wife of Ravindra Kumar Agarwal and Meenakshi Agarwal wife of Praveen Kumar Agarwal under the name and style of "M/s. Saree Nagar and Co," as stop-gap arrangement and temporarily established there. There is one passage for the shop and from inside the shop, a wooden staircase has been fastened for approach on the Doochatti portion by customers. This arrangement is inconvenient and on account of trouble and risk of fall, the customers do not prefer to climb on it and the business of M/s. Sari Nagar and Co. has been suffering considerably. On account of disturbance of the Doochatti portion, the partners of M/s. Saree Nagar. namely, Sri Ravindra Kumar Agarwal and Praveen Kumar Agarwal decided to abandon their partnership and run their independent business in whole of the shop. Similarly the partners of M/s. Saree Nagar and Co. have also decided to run their business independently and conveniently in a suitable premises. An agreement has been arrived at amongst the partners wherein the partnership business which is being carried on in a portion of Doochatti shall go exclusively to Sri Ravindra Kumar Agarwal and Smt. Indra Agarwal and Praveen Kumar Agarwal will carry on the business in the shop in question which is under the tenancy of the petitioners. It was claimed that the shop is required by Praveen Kumar for carrying on independent business. It was further asserted that the tenant-petitioners will not suffer any hardship as they have other shops where they are carrying on business. They have one shop in Suresh Chandra Jain Market, Khoya Mandi and carrying on the business in the name of "S. N. Girish Kumar" and other shop is situate in Jawahar Square near Naz Cinema where the cloth business is being carried on in the name of "Madhuri Sarec Sansar" besides son of Behari Lal Agarwal namely Madhup Agarwal is running taxi business.
3. The petitioners filed written statement and denied that Praveen Kumar Agarwal requires the shop in dispute for carrying on any business. He is carrying on business in the partnership with his brother Ravindra Kumar Agarwal. The allegation of the landlord-respondents that they have Strained relationship on account of which they cannot carry on business in partnership is false.
4. The petitioners filed a supplementary affidavit during the pendency of the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority alleging that Ravindra Kumar Agarwal had opened a showroom of his own at 734, Old Katra. Allahabad on 2.5.1995 under the name and style of "M/s. Saree Palace" and after opening of such showroom by him, Praveen Kumar Agarwal will not require the shop in question for carrying on independent business as he is already carrying on business in partnership with his brother Ravindra Kumar Agarwal in a portion of the building in question. The Prescribed Authority on consideration of the material evidence on the record came to the conclusion that Praveen Kumar Agarwal requires the shop in question for carrying on independent business and on comparative hardship, it found that landlord-respondents will suffer greater hardship and on these findings allowed the release application on 27.2.1997. The petitioners preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by respondent No. 1 on 13.10.1998.
5. 1 have heard Sri K. M. Dayal, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Sri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for the landlord-respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner laid great emphasis on the fact that Ravindra Kumar Agarwal and Praveen Kumar Agarwal are already carrying on business in partnership in a portion of the building 27/101 Jawahar Square, Meerganj, Allahabad and the petitioners arc carrying on the business in another portion of the same building. Ravindra Kumar Agarwal has opened a showroom at 734 Old Katra, Allahabad on 2.5.1995 and he having got another shop/ showroom, the theory of the strained relationship in the partnership business, as alleged by them, should not have been accepted and their version that Praveen Kumar Agarwal will carry on independent business, in the facts and circumstances, is not to be believed.
7. Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act provides that the Prescribed Authority, on an application of the landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that the building is bona fide required by the landlord. The word 'bona fide' is a Latin of ablative meaning 'in good faith'. The need of the landlord, therefore, should not be dishonest and such an application should not have been filed with an oblique motive. The word 'required' signifies that the mere desire on the part of the landlord is not enough but there should be an element of genuine need. The need, however, does not mean extreme need. The landlord has to objectively satisfy his requirement before the Prescribed Authority. This interpretation has been enunciated in Mattulal v. Radhe Lal. AIR 1974 SC 1596 ; P. B. Desai v. C. M. Patel, AIR 1974 SC 1059 and Ajit Prasad v. IVth Addl. District Judge, Meerut and others, 1979 ARC 73. In N. S. Datta and others v. 8th Addl. District Judge, Allahabad and others. 1984 (1) ARC 113, on consideration of various decisions, the court found that the mere desire on the part of the landlord to get an accommodation released is not contemplated under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act but on the other hand, it cannot be equated with the word 'absolute requirement'.
8. If it is established that the landlord requires an accommodation for carrying on the business and it is proved to the satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority that he will carry on the business as asserted by him, the Prescribed Authority would not be justified in rejecting the legitimate demand for an accommodation to carry on the business simply on the ground that he can make adjustment in another accommodation or he should have made some other arrangement or as he has got some source of earning and, therefore, he cannot be permitted to run any other business. The Full Bench of this Court in Chandra Kumar Sah and another v. District Judge and others. AIR 1976 All 328, emphasised this aspect as follows :
"It is thus clear that if the claim of the landlord is not dishonest and he has no oblique motive or is not for any designed purpose of evicting the tenant, his need should be held to be bona fide. There is nothing in the provisions of the Act to suggest that a landlord even though bona fide requiring an accommodation for his own occupation may not be allowed to occupy it himself : it is not one of the aims and objects of the Act to prevent a landlord's occupying an accommodation himself even though he wants to occupy it himself and does not want to profiteer or to take unconscionable advantage of the shortage of accommodation."
9. The question as to bona fide need of the landlord and comparative hardship which one party may suffer more in case an application is allowed or rejected, are two separate aspects when a matter is to be decided while considering an application under Section 21 (1| fa) of the Act. Section 21 (1) (aj provides that the Prescribed Authority may release an accommodation when it is required bona fide by the landlord. It is the fourth proviso to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act which provides that the Prescribed Authority shall take into account the likely hardship of the tenant from the grant of the application as against the likely hardship to the landlord from the refusal of the application and for that purpose shall have regard to such factors as may be prescribed. The Prescribed Authority is not to consider the factors required for deciding the comparative hardship while deciding the question of bona jide need. If the landlord establishes that the accommodation under the tenancy is bona fide required, it is only thereafter the Prescribed Authority has to take into consideration the comparative hardship which the parties may suffer. If the landlord proves that he shall carry on business in a shop and on consideration of the evidence, the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that he will carry on the business in the said shop and there is no oblique motive to get it released, e.g.. to let it out after release or sell it, his application cannot be thrown out simply on the ground that such landlord must carry on business in partnership with others or make adjustment with others or remain satisfied with the, business that he is already carrying on.
10. The version of Praveen Kumar is that he and his brother Ravindra Kumar Agarwal had been carrying on business in partnership. There is difference between him and his brother and it was thought proper that Praveen Kumar Agarwal should carry on independent business in the shop in question which is under the tenancy of the petitioners. The assertion of the petitioners is that as there is no strained relationship between Ravindra Kumar Agarwal and Praveen Kumar Agarwal and in fact.
they are carrying on the business in partnership, there is no justification for permitting them to get the shop in question released. The petitioners have themselves annexed a copy of the partnership deed dated 1.7.1985 between the two brothers as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Paragraph 11 of the said partnership deed indicates that the duration of the partnership shall be at will. Their father Sri Nath expired on 21.1.1983 and thereafter both these brothers entered into partnership and are carrying on the business in the name and style of "M/s. Saree Nagar" in a portion of premises No. 27/101 Jawahar Square. Meerganj, Allahabad. Ravindra Kumar Agarwal has two sons. If, with the passage of time, the difference arises and further they want to carry on independent business and their version is believed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority, it cannot be held that the authorities acted illegally in allowing the release application on the finding recorded by them that the need of Praveen Kumar Agarwal to carry on independent business is bona fide and genuine.
11. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Ravindra Kumar Agarwal has opened a showroom at 734 Old Katra, Allahabad on 2.5.1995 during the pendency of the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority but there is nothing to show that Ravindra Kumar Agarwal has surrendered his rights in the partnership business. He is entitled as owner to carry on business in the shop where business is being carried on at present in partnership. He can also take other accommodations to run the business to augment his income. He has two sons and if he is expanding his business, it cannot be said that the need of Ravindra Kumar Agarwal to carry on business in that shop has extinguished.
12. Praveen Kumar Agarwal cannot ask his brother to surrender his rights in the partnership business and permit him to carry on the business exclusively which is being carried on in the name and style of 'Saree Nagar' by him and Sri Ravindra Kumar on the ground that Ravindra Kumar Agarwal has opened a show room at another place which belongs to Ravindra Kumar exclusively. The application under Section 21 (1) (a) at the Act has been filed on the ground that Praveen Kumar Agarwal requires the shop in question to carry on independent business separately from his brother.
13. On the other hand, it is admitted to the tenant-petitioners that they have other shops--one at Suresh Chandra Jain Market. Khoya Mandi, Allahabad and other at Jawahar Square near Naz Cinema where the business is being carried on in the name of 'Madhuri Saree Sansar'. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners and in paragraph 6 of that affidavit, it has been stated that Ashok Kumar Agarwal, one of the co-tenants of the shop in question and brother of the petitioners, herein arrayed as respondent No. 8 is carrying on independent business in the name and style of "Madhuri Saree Sansar" in shop No, 30/95 Jawahar Square, Allahabad and the petitioners have got no concern with the said business. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit, it is stated that in Suresh Chandra Jain Market. Khoya Mandi. Allahabad, petitioner No. 2 Girish Kumar is carrying on separate business of cloth. If one of the petitioners, namely, Girish Kumar is carrying on business in the shop in question and also independent business in a separate shop and further Ashok Kumar Agarwal, one of the co-tenants of the shop in question is carrying on a separate business in another shop, there does not seem to be any reason that Praveen Kumar Agarwal who is one of the co-landlords cannot be permitted to carry on independent and separate business in the shop in question.
14. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, considering the comparative hardship of the parties, found that the landlord-respondents shall suffer greater hardship in case their application is rejected. The petitioners and respondents both are businessmen. The petitioners and their brother respondent No. 8 all have shops. The petitioners in paragraph No. 14 of the writ petition stated that annual turnover of the petitioners and respondent No. 8 from the shop in question has been about 18 lacs. They have not disclosed in the writ petition the annual turnover of the shop situate in Suresh Chandra Jain Market where the business is being carried on in the name and style of "Madhuri Saree Sansar" and another shop situate in Suresh Chandra Jain Market. Khoya Mandi, Allahabad in the name and style of "S. N. Girish Kumar". The son of petitioner No. 2 Madhup Agarwal is admittedly engaged in taxi business. They have alternative accommodations and sufficient economic background to make adjustments in regard to their business.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to various decisions in his written arguments but they are based on facts of the case and it is not necessary to deal with them here separately. I have decided the case on the question of bona fide need and the comparative hardship as applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
16. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.
17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, however, the petitioners are granted eight months time to vacate the disputed accommodation provided they give a written undertaking on affidavit before the Prescribed Authority within one week from today that they would vacate the disputed accommodation within the time granted by this Court and will handover its peaceful possession to the landlord-respondents.