A.N Varma, J.:— The dispute in the present petition centres around shop situate in building 512/687-Ka, Balda Road, Nishatganj, Lucknow, of which the opposite party No. 2 is the landlord and the petitioner is the tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. The proceedings for ejectment of the tenant from over the shop in question was initiated by the landlord under section 21(1)(a), U.P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, U.P Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to be as ‘Act’) on the ground that the same was required by him to establish his son Mohd. Islam, in a tailoring business. It was alleged that the family consisted of himself, his wife, four daughters, one son, daughter-in-law, four grand-daughters, in total twelve members. It was further alleged that apart from the shop in question the opposite party No. 2 had no other accommodation wherein his son Mohd. Islam could be settled for doing tailoring business.

2. The case set up by the landlord was denied by the petitioner by filing a written statement. According to the petitioner he was tenant of a tin shed and a kothri on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- per month. The accommodation in question was not required by the opposite party No. 2 to establish his son in tailoring business as the said son was already doing said business elsewhere. The petitioner was an old tenant of the building in question and was earning his livelihood by selling glass bangles. The need of the landlord was not bonafide and only in order to evict the petitioner from the accommodation in question, that the application was preferred with oblique motive and malafide intention. It was further alleged that recently the landlord got a shop vacated in proceedings under section 21(1)(a) of Act XIII of 1972 against one Mohd. Haneef and had sold out the same and in case it was bonafide required for establishing his son in business, the same ought to have been retained. In support of their cases the petitioner as well as the opposite party No. 2 filed affidavits.

3. The prescribed authority vide its judgment and order dated 19.5.2005 rejected the application preferred by the landlord under section 21(1)(a) of the Act. Being aggrieved against the same the opposite party No. 2 filed an appeal before the District Judge, Lucknow. The opposite party No. 1 vide its judgment and order dated 25.4.2006 allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner to vacate the premises in question within a period of three months. It is against the said judgment and order that the petitioner has approached this Court in the instant writ petition.

4. I have heard Sri Vijay Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Yogesh Kesarwani, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2. Sri Vijay Krishna vehemently argued that the judgment and order passed by the opposite party No. 1, allowing the appeal preferred by the opposite party No. 2 is manifestly illegal and suffers form grave errors. According to him the learned prescribed authority while rejecting the application preferred by the opposite party No. 2 for release of the building in question, took into account the fact that one shop under the tenancy of one Mohd. Haneef was got vacated in proceedings under section 21(1)(a) and thereafter it was sold out to one Smt. Faqrunissa. This being so the application preferred by the opposite party No. 2 for release was rejected. According to the learned Counsel, the learned Appellate Court while allowing the appeal did not take into account this aspect of the matter. He further submits that fresh evidence was filed during the proceedings before the opposite party No. 1 and without giving an opportunity to rebut the same, the learned District Judge illegally allowed the appeal.

5. Sri Vijay Krishna further submitted that the findings recorded by the learned District Judge on the question of bonafide need as well as comparative hardship also stands vitiated inasmuch as the said findings cannot be sustained because of the fact that the opposite party No. 2 instead of utilizing the shop which fell vacant in eviction proceedings against Mohd. Haneef for himself or for his son, sold out the same to another person. As per his submissions, the Appellate Court fell in error in allowing the application was the building in question was let out and was being used for residential purposes and the same has been released in favour of the landlord for business purposes. This finding runs contrary to Clause 2 of proviso 3 of section 21 of U.P Act 13 of 1972.

6. Sri Yogesh Kesharwani, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 in opposition submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge does not suffer from any error, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court with the same in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. His argument is that the building under the tenancy of Mohd. Haneef fell vacant in 2000 and the same was sold out in order to meet out the expenses for the marriage of the daughter of the landlord in April 2000. The full amount of the sale consideration was paid to the landlord in March 2000. The sale deed was, however, executed on 27.6.201 as at the relevant time money for requisite stamp was not available with the purchaser.

7. He further submitted that the son of the landlord though was employed in a tailoring shop at Gomti Nagar, but he had no business of his own, therefore, the shop in question was required for establishing the said son in business. On the question of comparative hardship, the learned Counsel submitted that greater hardship would occasion to the landlord in case the application under section 21(1)(a) of the Act is disallowed in compared to that of the tenant in case the application is rejected. His argument further was that the shop in question was let out for business purposes and the same was required for the son for tailoring business, therefore, the argument of the petitioner that a residential building cannot be released for business purposes is absolutely fallacious.

8. The prescribed authority rejected the application preferred by the landlord on the sole ground that after the shop in the tenancy of Mohd. Haneef having been vacated the same was sold out, therefore, the need of the landlord was not bonafide and genuine. The learned prescribed authority did not consider and take into account the circumstances which warranted the landlord to sell of the property which fell vacant. The learned District Judge, however, recorded a categorical finding that the shop under tenancy of Mohd. Haneef after having been vacated fell down on account of incessant rains and only open land over which the same existed remained. Since the marriage of the daughter of the landlord had already been settled and he was in dire need of money to meet out the expenses of the said marriage, therefore, he negotiated with one Smt. Faqrunissa who agreed to purchase the same and in March 2000 paid the entire sale consideration and thereafter marriage was performed in April 2000. On this score the learned District Judge was perfectly justified in holding that the need of the landlord cannot be termed to be malafide. The application under section 21 in the instant case was preferred in May 2004. On the question of bonafide need the learned District Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that every individual has a right to settle himself independently in business. Mohd. Islam son and member of the family of the landlord though may have been working in a tailoring shop at Gomti Nagar, still had a right to establish himself independently. Mere fact that he was working in a tailoring shop, the need of the landlord cannot be defeated. He was married and had children to support them.

9. On the question of comparative hardship, the learned District Judge rightly came to the conclusion that greater hardship would occasion to the landlord in case the application is disallowed in compared to tenant in case the application is rejected.

10. There is also nothing on record to indicate that the tenant made any effort to search out an alternative accommodation in view of the fact that proceedings for his eviction having been initiated by the landlord.

11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been a tenant of the premises for more than 30 years and in case the order of eviction is allowed to stand great hardship would occasion to him.

12. Whenever a decree for ejectment is passed the tenant will have to be ousted and will suffer hardship. Such an event was fully in contemplation of legislature while enacting section 21(1)(a) of the Act. This by itself would not negate the requirement of landlord on the ground of bonafide need. Landlord, if requires and bonafide needs an accommodation to settle himself or any member of his family in any business, trade or vocation, the same cannot be denied on the ground of that the tenant would suffer. Being an owner, the landlord or any member of his family cannot be denied right to enter into business and earn his livelihood merely to enable a tenant to carry on his business. Moreover, the learned District Judge has in its judgment discussed about alternative accommodation available with petitioner at 3/584, Sector-3, Jankipuram and also with his two sons where the business can be conveniently shifted.

13. as regards that a residential building could not be made available for business purposes, the petitioner nowhere in his written statement came out with a case that the premises was let out to him solely for residential purposes. Rather his case in the written statement was that he was tenant of one tin shed and a kothari on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. It is incorrect to say that he was tenant of tin shed shop only. Moreover, in the application that he preferred for deposit of rent under section 30 of the Act the reason for deposit of rent disclosed was that the landlord of the shop refused to accept the rent. Thus it is clear that the shop was let out for business purpose and the same was required for business purpose.

14. Every individual has a right to engage himself, expand his business and increase his income. Requirement of a premises for business purposes and argumentation of income for oneself and for the family is a bonafide need, it cannot be negatived in any circumstances. Landlords' intention to establish his son in his career and the requirement of an accommodation for the same cannot be termed as malafide.

15. The judgment and order passed by the opposite party No. 1 in the circumstances does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. No interference, thus is required in the same. The writ petition lacks merits and as such is hereby dismissed.

16. However, looking to the fact that the tenant had been doing business in the shop in question for the last about 35 years and to conveniently shift the business to an alternative accommodation some time would be required, therefore, it is provided that the petitioner shall vacate the premises in question by 31.12.2006 provided he files an affidavit within a period of 15 days from today that he will handover vacant possession to the landlord by 31.12.2006 It is further provided that the petitioner shall pay to the opposite party No. 2 monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- by 7th of each month until such time he vacates the premises. In default of the conditions stipulated hereinabove the benefit allowed to the petitioner shall not be available to him and he shall be evicted forthwith.

Petition Dismissed.