JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J.
1. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlords-respondents 2 to 4 Manohar Lal and others against him 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. 4 of 1988 on the file of Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Azamgarh. Prescribed Authority through judgment and order dated 4.4.1990 dismissed the release application. Against the said judgment and order landlords-respondents filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 42 of 1990. 1st Additional District Judge, Azamgarh through judgment and order dated 3.5.1991, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority. Consequently, release application stood allowed. This writ petition by tenant is directed against the said judgment of the appellate court.
2. In the property in dispute the tenant-petitioner is doing business. He has installed flour Mill and Oil expeller in the property in dispute. Rent is only Rs. 10 per month. Tenancy is continuing since 1958.
3. Landlords had stated in the release application that they required the premises in dispute for starting some business. Tenant pleaded that father of the landlords, i.e., Mangal Chand was quite a rich man and he owned several businesses, houses and shops and family of the landlords was joint, hence they could join their father in his business.
4. Prescribed authority held that "Accordingly I hold that the applicants are members of a Joint Hindu Family and they carry on their business with their father Mangal Chand".
5. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Shushila v. A.D.J. and A. Kumar v. Mustaquim , that every landlord and every adult member of his family is entitled to start independent separate business and no one can be compelled to join the family business.
6. Tenant had also pleaded and prescribed authority found that to be proved that Mangal Chandra, father of the petitioners, was having 8 shops out of which one shop was vacant and 7 were in possession of tenants, Prescribed authority held that in the vacant shop landlords could establish on their business.
7. Prescribed authority also found that some other shops were also available in vacant state with the father of the landlords. Father of the landlords offered one such shop to the tenant. However, the tenant contemptuously rejected the said offer. Availability of vacant shop with the father is no ground to reject the release application of the son. During lifetime of father sons do not have an absolute right to the property of their father. If father permits the son to carry on business in one of his shops the status of the son may by and large be described to be that of licensee. Possession of a shop or accommodation as licensee is no ground to reject the release application, as held by the Supreme Court in M.E. Kshirsagar v. Traders and Agencies . In any case when the tenant refused the offer of the shop available to the father of the landlords on the ground of unsuitability then it was no more open for him to assert that landlords should shift or start their business in one of those shops. Prescribed authority also found that one of the landlords was doing some business. Even if this allegation is correct, this will not make any difference as the need for other two landlords survives.
8. Even during pendency of the writ petition fresh offer of a shop belonging to the father of the petitioner was made to the tenant. However, the tenant outrightly refused the same. Even counter-affidavit was not filed to the affidavit filed in support of Application No. 61649 of 1996 through which alternative shop was offered. During arguments learned Counsel for the tenant stated that the area of the said shop was quite small and it was also not situated on the main road hence it was not suitable for the tenant. A tenant paying only Rs. 10 per month as rent cannot be permitted to be choosy about the accommodation from where he intends to carry on his business. On the one hand tenant is pressing his choice of the accommodation and on the other hand, he is asserting boldly that landlords cannot have any choice in this regard and howsoever small and inconvenient the accommodation available to them may be, they shall start their business therefrom and shall not disturb the possession of the tenant. This is not the policy of the Rent Control Act.
9. The Supreme Court in Siddalingama v. M. Shenoy , has held that Rent Control Acts are basically meant for the benefit of the tenants and provision of release on the ground of bona fide need is the only provision which treats the landlord with some sympathy.
10. The Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja v. United Insurance Co. and S.N. Kapoor v. B.L. Khatri , has held that it is unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself. It has also been held that in the matter of choice of accommodation some discretion and latitude has to be given to the landlord and tenant cannot dictate that landlord shall satisfy his need in the manner suggested by him. In the later authority it has also been held that Courts cannot impose their own wisdom in advising the landlord the manner in which he can satisfy his need without disturbing the possession of the tenant.
11. In Chandrika Prasad (Dead) through L.Rs. and Anr. v. Umesh Kumar Verma and Ors. , it has been held that if release is sought of a shop situate on the main road for establishing Clinic of Doctor son-in-law, then it is immaterial that father of the said Doctor son-in-law has got some shop situate in a narrow lane. If two shops are available to the landlord, he has got the liberty to choose the better one.
12. In respect of comparative hardship appellate court held that tenant was having his own house in which he could shift his business. Landlords themselves had offered a shop belonging to their father and that several other persons were ready to let out their shops to the tenant, hence balance of comparative hardship lay in favour of the landlord. Apart from it tenant did not bring on record that what efforts he made to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application. This by itself was sufficient to tilt the balance of comparative hardship against him. Vide B.C. Bhutada v. G.R. Mundada .
13. Accordingly, I do not find least error in the findings of bona fide need and comparative hardship recorded by the appellate court in favour of the landlords. Writ petition is dismissed.
14. Tenant petitioner is granted six months time to vacate provided that:
(i) Within one month from today he files an undertaking before the prescribed authority to the effect that on or before the expiry of period of six months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the accommodation in dispute to the landlord-respondents.
(ii) For this period of six months which has been granted to the tenant to vacate he Is 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 landlady-respondent.
15. In case of default in compliance with either of these conditions, tenant-petitioner shall be evicted after one month through process of Court.
16. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not. filed or Rs. 3,000 are not deposited within one month then tenant-petitioner shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation.
17. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. 3,000 the accommodation in dispute is not vacated in six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per month since after six months till actual vacation.