JUDGMENT Dilip Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the order dated 14th May, 2001 passed by the Prescribed Authority by which the application filed by the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for eviction of the tenant from the shop in dispute, as it was bona fide required by the landlord, was allowed. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 10th January, 2008 by which the Appeal filed by the tenant under Section 22 of the Act for setting aside the aforesaid order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar.
2. The landlord had filed the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act for eviction of the tenant from the premises on the ground that the shop was bona fide required for establishing the business for his unemployed graduate son who was assisting the landlord in the business. The application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority holding that the shop was bona fide required by the landlord for his son and that the landlord was likely to suffer greater hardship in the event the application was rejected. The finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority has been confirmed by the Appellate Court.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are perverse as the landlord had enough accommodation from where the proposed expansion of the business could be carried out.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent, however, contended that the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority are based on appraisal of evidence and do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. It is not in dispute that the son of the landlord is carrying out the business from a very small portion measuring 4.9' × 10.8' and there is no other shop available with the landlord from where the said business can be expanded. The Courts below have recorded a categorical finding of fact that the landlord needed to expand his business so as to settle his graduate son also for which the premises in dispute was necessary. The Courts below have also recorded a categorical finding of fact that the landlord was likely to suffer greater hardship in case the application was rejected as the tenant was only carrying out the work of repairing the old jute bags which could also be carried out from any other small place as it did not involve any sale from the counter and that the tenant had not made any genuine effort for obtaining any other alternative accommodation during the pendency of the application.
6. The Courts have repeatedly held that need of the landlord to establish his unemployed graduate son in business is bona fide. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sushila v. IInd Additional District Judge, Banda and Ors. wherein it was observed:
We find that Prem Prakash is a young man who is unemployed. He is married and has children. There is every justification for him or for his mother to settle him in life independently. He cannot be compelled to join his father in his Goldsmith and money lending work in his small shop. In our opinion, he is entitled to start business of his own choice and independently. The appellate court took a view, as indicated above, which is palpably wrong and wholly unacceptable.
7. The shop from where the landlord and his son were carrying out the business is very small. The need to expand the business was bona fide as has been held by the Supreme Court in Sait Nagjee Pursushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal and Ors. .
8. The findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority regarding the comparative hardship in favour of the landlord also does not call for any interference as the nature of the job carried out by the tenant is such which can be carried out from any other accommodation as no sale from counter takes place. This apart, the tenant had not made any genuine effort to find out an alternative accommodation during the pendency of the application. This Court in Faiyaz Khan v. 2nd Additional District Judge, Jhansi and Ors. 2006 (24) LCD 929 observed:
Concept of comparative hardship can not be stretched to the extent of depriving the landlord of his property even if landlord is in real and imminent need. It has been brought on record that in adjoining town Dr. Amin was having a clinic even though he asserted that he attended that only off and on. In any case tenant did not show that he made any efforts to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application. As held by the Supreme Court in B.C. Bhutada v. G.R. Mundada , this by itself was sufficient to tilt the balance of hardship against the tenant.
9. The findings of bona fide requirement and comparative hardship are based on appraisal of evidence. The Supreme Court in Munni Lal and Ors. v. Prescribed Authority and Ors. clearly observed that while examining the findings of bona fide need and comparative hardship of landlord and tenant it is not for the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion which may be different from that reached by the District Judge or the Prescribed Authority.
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the Courts below could have considered part release of the tenanted accommodation. The order of the Prescribed Authority shows that some alternative accommodation was offered by the landlord to the tenant but the tenant did not accept that offer. Even otherwise, the accommodation is not such for which partial release can be considered.
11. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. The petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. In the end learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that four months may be given to the petitioner to handover peaceful possession of the shop to the landlord.
13. Learned Counsel appearing for the landlord submitted that the Court may grant the aforesaid time provided the petitioner gives the usual undertaking within three weeks from today before the Court below.
14. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner shall not be ejected from the premises in dispute for a period of four months from today provided the petitioner gives the following undertaking before the Court below within three weeks from today.
1. That the petitioner shall pay damages at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month beginning from the month of March, 2008 up to the date he hands-over the possession of the shop to the landlord.
2. That the petitioner shall not induct any other person in the shop.
3. That the petitioner shall handover peaceful possession of the shop to the landlord on or before the expiry of four months.
15. It is made clear that in the event the petitioner fails to give the undertaking within the aforesaid period or fails to comply with any of the terms of the undertaking, then in that case, it will be open to the landlord to get the decree executed.