ANANT RAM JAIN Vs. VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner and landlord of a building situate at Kotana Road in the town of Baraut, district Meerut. The respondent No. 3 is the tenant of a shop situate on the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 208.33p. The petitioner filed an application under Section 21 (1" (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the shop showing the need for his third son Sanjay Kumar Jain. The petitioner alleged that his third son was a student of B.A. and was not good in studies and had failed in his B.A. examination and that he did not wish to study any further and therefore, wanted to start a business of shoes and chappals. The landlord contended that apart from the building in question, he had no other premises where he could set up the business for his son and therefore, he required the shop to set up the business for his third son Sanjay Kumar Jain. The tenant respondent No. 3 contested the release application and denied that the need of the landlord, to set up the business for his son, was boriafide.

(2.) The prescribed authority dismissed the release application of the petitioner holding that the third son of the petitioner, namely, Sanjay Kumar Jain could carry on the business with his father, who was carrying on the business of shoes and chappals in a rented shop. The appellate court further found that the need of the tenant was greater than the need of the landlord.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the prescribed authority, the petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate court held that the need of the petitioner for his son was genuine and bona fide. The prescribed authority, however, found that the tenant would suffer greater hardship than the petitioner and on this basis dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.