NURUDDIN Vs. ANIL PRAKASH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A release application was filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3 under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of disputed shop no.3/36 (old no.64) situated in Mission Compound (New) Begum Bridge Road, Meerut.

(2.) THE need set up by landlords in the release application is to establish their business of pump, its service and maintenance. They were carrying on as Thekedar but since they suffered loss, therefore, they intend to start a new business from the disputed shop. Tenant/petitioner was doing tailoring business from the said shop. When landlords requested him to vacate shop in question, he was demanding Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh). Landlords also pleaded that in case shop is released, tenant will not suffer more hardship than that of refusal of release application.

(3.) I have gone through the two judgments and considered arguments of counsels for respective parties at length. The two courts have categorically recorded findings that landlords have suffered huge financial loss and they require shop to start new business. Besides, alternative accommodation suggested by tenant was also found not to be suitable for commercial activities as it was located far away from main road, therefore, not commercially viable. It is also a settled principle that the landlord cannot be compelled to accommodate his business in an alternative place only because it is suggested by the tenant.