JUDGMENT Mukteshwar Prasad, J.
1. The tenants have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the judgment and order dated 14.9.1982 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1 whereby he allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the prescribed authority dated 21.8.1979 and allowed the application for release of the disputed shop No. 43/213 Meston Road, Kanpur.
2. Admittedly, Rajendra Kumar Jain, husband of respondent No. 2 was landlord of the shop No. 43/213 situate on the ground floor of Meston Road, Kanpur and Ram Swaroop Agrawal, father of the petitioner No. 1 was the original tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 106.25 P. It. is further admitted that respondent Nos. 6 to 9 are sons of late Rajendra Kumar Jain and were the applicants in the application for release moved under Section 21(1)(a) of Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The family of the landlord consisted of several members including his wife, his four sons, three unmarried daughters and thus, he had a large family. The income of the landlord was not sufficient to meet all the requirements of the family and as such, applicants wanted to start a new business in the disputed shop with a view to provide job to Alok Kumar Jain, who was a student at the time, the application was moved. It was also alleged that no hardship would be caused to the tenant, as he owned three shops fully described in the application as well as residential premises on the Meston Road, Shisha Mau, Lajpat Nagar and Rail Bazar.
3. The tenant contested the application on the grounds, inter alia, that the requirement of the applicants was not genuine and application for release was moved only with a view to pressurize the tenant for enhancing the rent. It was pleaded that there was an agreement of March, 1969, between the parties that rent would not be enhanced and tenant would not be evicted provided he paid rent regularly. The tenant took the plea that applicant Nos. 2 to 4 were employed and applicant No. 5 was studying. He had no experience of doing business. The landlords wanted to evict the tenant from the disputed shop by hook or crook. The tenant pleaded that he had no concern with other shops and residences, alleged in the application and he was a partner in one of the shops.
4. The parties filed affidavits counter-affidavits and led documentary evidence also. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, learned prescribed authority dismissed the application.
5. An appeal under Section 22 of the Act was filed by the landlords, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 14.9.1982. Hence, this petition.
6. I have heard Sri Pankaj Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Praveen Kumar Misra, holding brief of Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents and perused the entire material on record.
7. As mentioned above, it is admitted that Rajendra Kumar Jain was landlord of the disputed shop and remaining applicants were his sons. It is also admitted that Ram Swaroop Agrawal, father of petitioner No. 1, was original tenant since 1953. Admittedly, both Rajendra Kumar Jain and Ram Swaroop Agrawal are dead.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners' father occupied the disputed shop as tenant in the year 1953 and since then, he was carrying on the business of General Merchant and Toys. Moreover, there was an agreement between the parties not to enhance the rent and not to seek eviction of tenants, which was executed in the month of March, 1969 and rent was enhanced to Rs. 100 and shop was required for starting business by Alok Kumar Jain only. It was not alleged in the application as to what kind of business would be done and who would carry on business in the disputed shop amongst the applicants. The respondent No. 1 did not consider this aspect of the matter and comparative hardship of the petitioners, which would be suffered by them, in case, they were directed to vacate the shop. He drew my attention to the subsequent events and placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court of India in Kedar Nath Agrawal and Anr. v. Dhanraji Devi (Dead) by L.Rs. and Anr., .
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlords-respondents has supported the impugned judgment and contended that it was clearly alleged in para 8 of the application that applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were all educated but they were not good in their studies. The applicant No. 5 was a student but he was not doing well and, as such, there was remote possibility of his getting good service/job. Therefore, the applicant No. 5 wanted to start a business in the disputed shop. It was also contended that mere fact that the tenant was occupying the disputed premises and was carrying on his business since long, it was in itself not a ground to refuse the application which was found to be bona fide and genuine. The tenants were required to search for another alternative accommodation to run their business and they could not force the landlords to seek release of other shops/accommodations owned by them. He placed reliance on the following decisions :
10. I have considered the rival contentions made on behalf of the parties and have also perused all decisions relied upon by them. I have also gone through the petition, counter-affidavit, rejoinder-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit also. So far as the alleged agreement entered into between the parties in the month of March, 1969, is concerned, same was rightly rejected by the court below. The petitioners in para 20 of their objection alleged that the disputed shop was needed for doing business by applicant No. 4 (Alok Kumar Jain) only. It was also pleaded that applicant Nos. 2 to 4 were employed in J. K. and Jute Mills and there was no question of starting of any business by them. However, petitioners admitted that Alok Kumar Jain was a student when the application was moved. I, however, find that there is no force in the contention of petitioners' counsel. First of all, I find that the application for release was moved with a view to engage all the applicants in the business. It is true that the need of the applicant No. 5 was highlighted. It will not be out of place to mention that the applicants clearly alleged in the application that they had a large family and as such, the applicants wanted to start business in the disputed shop with a view to minimize financial hardship.
11. In the supplementary-affidavit, the petitioners stated that eldest son of original landlord, Jainendra Kumar Jain (J. K. Jain) has left India and has been settled in U.S.A. for the last 1-1/2 years Narendra Kumar Jain is a share broker and is doing share and money lending business. Ashok Kumar Jain is a L.I.C. agent and Alok Kumar Jain is running his General Merchant shop at Juhi, Kanpur. The respondents, in their supplementary counter-affidavit asserted that Alok Kumar Jain, has completed his education and he specifically stated that he is an unemployed. It was further stated that son of J. K. Jain is settled in U.S.A. and J. K. Jain is living there along with his wife for her treatment and entire expenses are borne out by his son namely, Sumit Kumar Jain. J. K. Jain is out of employment and he would be coming back shortly after treatment of his wife is over there. It was also claimed that J. K. Jain was unemployed on account of closure of the factory (Kanpur Jute Udyog, Kanpur). After closure of the factory, he was sitting idle, N. K. Jain was an employee of J. K. Satoh, Kanpur, which was declared as a sick unit. Thus, all the brothers required disputed shop for starting business and were facing financial hardship. Reliance was placed on the decisions of Supreme Court as well as of this Court on this fact that the petitioners' father occupied the disputed shop as a tenant in the year 1953 would not be a ground to reject application for release provided the requirement of landlords is found to be genuine and pressing. It is quite obvious from perusal of record that landlords-applicants are unemployed/partly employed and their need was found to be genuine by the appellate court after appraisal of the evidence on record. The application was filed in the month of April, 1974 and since then, 31 years have elapsed. Therefore, in view of the decisions of this Court in Thakur Singh case (supra) and Pramod Kumar Verma case (supra), I am not prepared to accept this contention that they are carrying on the business in the shop in question since long is sufficient ground to reject the application for release, as provided under Rule 16 (2)(a) of the Rules framed under the Act. During the last 31 years, petitioners had sufficient time and they could have obtained an alternative accommodation during this long period provided sincere and serious efforts were made by them. I find that the appellate court had taken into consideration all aspects of the matter and repelled the contention of the petitioners. I further find that the petitioners could have bought other accommodation residential/non-residential also in the city of Kanpur and they could easily shift their business to other places without any loss. In this view of the matter, I fully agree with the finding recorded by the appellate court that the landlords would suffer great hardship than the petitioners in case, the application was rejected.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, I find that this petition is devoid of substance and lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. I find no ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the appellate court.
13. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The tenant-petitioners are, however, allowed four months time from today to vacate the shop and deliver its vacant possession to the landlords. The landlords shall pay Rs. 1,000 only to the petitioners as compensation.