JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J.
1. This is tenants writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent No. 3 Rakesh Kumar on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 50 of 1982.
2. Property in dispute is a shop rent of which is Rs. 50 per month.
3. Prescribed Authority/Munsif Hawaii, Saharanpur through judgment and order dated 28.2.1983. dismissed the release application against which landlord filed R. C. Appeal No. 149 of 1983. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Saharanpur through judgment and order dated 26.5.1986, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the prescribed authority with the result that release application stood allowed hence this writ petition by the tenant.
4. Release application was filed against three persons, i.e., Kewal Krishna Om Prakash, Kewal Krishna and Om Prakash. This writ petition has been filed by M/s Kewal Krishna Om Prakash and Kewal Krishna. Om Prakash the real brother of Kewal Krishna has been impleaded as proforma respondent No. 4. No steps to serve respondent No. 4 were taken hence this writ petition was dismissed against respondent No. 4 by me on 24.1.2003. Thereafter an application was filed by the petitioner on 16.2.2003, for recalling the said order. The said application is allowed and order dated 24.1.2003 is recalled. However, as respondent No. 4 is only a proforma respondent hence there is no need to issue notice to him. His interest is sufficiently safeguarded by the petitioners the other tenants.
5. Landlord pleaded that he was residing in Nanauta a town of district Saharanpur and he intended to shift to Saharanpur for business purpose. It was also asserted that he would be able to provide good education to his children at Saharanpur. It was also stated in the release application that he had two sons and shop in dispute was required for them also. It was also stated that tenant had acquired another shop bearing No. 58 and had let out the same to another person at the rent of Rs. 150 per month. Landlord also stated that his father and two brothers had already shifted to Saharanpur and were permanently residing there.
6. The tenant pleaded that the landlord was having good business at Nanauta; he had a brick kiln there and was also doing other business.
7. Exodus from village to town and town to city is age old phenomenon and is considered to be sign of progress. During recent times this trend has received great impetus. There cannot be any doubt that business in cities is much more profitable than towns. One may like it or not but the fact is that residence and business in a city is considered to be at a higher level than residence and business in towns and villages in the social hierarchy. Backwardness is defined in terms of educational, social and economical. in cities better opportunities of education and earning are available than towns. In terms of the social standards society gives greater value to the residence in cities than to residence in villages and towns. Accordingly the need to shift from Nanauta to Saharanpur was quite bonajlde and appellate court did not commit any error of law in holding the need of the landlord to be bona fide by reversing the judgment of the prescribed authority on the said point. In this regard a recent authority of Supreme Court may also be referred to. The said authority is in S.N. Purushotham and Co. Limited v. V. Prabhulal 2006 AIR SCW 45. In the said authority Supreme Court held that need for expanding business to Other cities is quite bona fide. Latter half portion of Para 4 of the said authority is quoted below :
The trial court as well as the first appellate court and the High Court examined the statements of P. Ws. 2 and 3 and after considering their evidence, the appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court and held that the need of the respondent-landlords to start business at Calicut is bona fide and genuine. It was held that it cannot be said that a person who is already having business at one place cannot expand his business at any other place in the country. It is true that the landlords have their business spreading over Chennai and Hyderabad and if they wanted to expand their business at Calicut it cannot be said to be unnatural thereby denying the eviction of the tenant from the premises in question. It is always the prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for expansion of business this is no ground to say that the landlords are already having their business at Chennai and Hyderabad therefore, it is not genuine need. It is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlords and advice him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of business. However, the trial court held in favour of tenant appellant. But the appellate court as well as the High Court after scrutinizing the evidence on record, reversed the finding of the trial court and held that the need of establishing the business at Calicut by the landlords cannot be said to be lacking in bona fide.
8. As far as comparative hardship is concerned tenant acquired another shop and let that out on higher rent. Thereafter, he agreed to sell (or sold) the same to another person. Explanation of the tenant that the said shop was meant for vegetable business and he had no experience about the said business hence he could not start business therefrom, is utterly untenable. Tenant clearly had available with him another shop which he had not utilized hence balance of hardship squarely lay against him.
9. Finding of the appellate court in respect of comparative hardship is also perfectly legal and confirmed.
10. In view of the above I do not find least error in the judgment and order passed by the appellate court.
11. Writ petition is therefore dismissed.
12. Tenants are granted six months time to vacate provided that :
(1) Within one month from today they file an undertaking before the prescribed authority to the effect that on or before the expiry of period of six months they will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-respondent.
(2) For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenants to vacate they are required to pay Rs. 3,000 (at the rate of Rs. 500 per month) as damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the prescribed authority and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-respondent.
13. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or amount of Rs. 3,000 is not deposited within one month then tenants shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation.
14. Similarly if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and deposit of Rs. 3,000 the property in dispute is not vacated on or before six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month since after six months till actual vacation.