Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2849 Court No. - 4 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14502 of 2024 Petitioner :- Raj Kumar (Deceased) And Another Respondent :- Smt. Kanta Devi (Now Deceased) And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghazala Bano Quadri Counsel for Respondent :- Jagdish Prasad Mishra,Krishna Kumar Singh Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Ms. Ghazala Bano Quadri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jagdish Prasad Mishra, learned counsel appearing for landlord-respondents. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioners have assailed the order dated 23rd January, 2017 passed by Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.), Ghaziabad in P.A. Case No. 01 of 2007; Smt. Kanta Devi and another vs. Raj Kumar and another directing the petitioners to release the accommodation in question in favour of landlord respondents. The said judgment was unsuccessfully assailed against in appeal and hence the judgment dated 13.09.2024 passed by Rent Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad in Rent Control Appeal No. 34 of 2017, which has also been challenged in this petition. 3. In support of challenge laid to the finding arrived at by the Prescribed Authority affirmed in appeal, as to the bonafide need set up by the landlord to get his other son established in the shop in question, is that sufficient statement was made to the effect that the other son Satendra for whom bonafide need was set up was already working earlier in a Tyre Company in Modi Nagar and later on he was working in Continental India Pvt. Limited, Modinagar in its engineering department and, therefore, the Prescribed Authority was not justified in not considering this aspect of the matter while arriving at a finding that need was bonafide. 4. Second submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner since does not have any other accommodation available to him to run the business and this shop being the only source of livelihood, point of comparative hardships tilted more in favour of of tenant than the landlord-respondents. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the findings on the issue of bonafide need and comparative hardships are sound enough based on cogent material led by the landlord respondent in evidence and, therefore, does not warrant any interference. He submits further that the Court of Appeal has rightly affirmed the judgment of Prescribed Authority and, therefore, this Court in exercise of its superintendly jurisdiction may not interfere in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority affirmed in appeal, in the event, orders do not suffer from any manifest error of law or fact. 6. Having heard the submissions advanced by respective parties and having perused the record, I find that insofar as bonafide need is concerned though the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner has been noted by the Prescribed Authority that earlier one of the sons Satendra for whom need was set up, was working in a Tyre Company at Modinagar and that subsequently he got engaged in engineering department of Continental India Pvt. Limited, Modinagar, Meerut but the tenant petitioners have not been able to bring any material to prove those very allegations and in absence of any cogent material placed before the Court in support of such pleadings raised and/or submissions so advanced, such bald statement cannot be accepted to hold that need set up by the landlord respondent in respect of one of his son was not a bonafide one. 7. Insofar as second aspect is concerned regarding comparative hardships, it has come to be admitted to the petitioner himself that there are two sons of the landlord and the other son was working with his father on the first floor where a photostat machine had been installed. In the considered view of the Court when the landlord has got two sons, it is for the landlord to decide whether both the sons are to be established separately or not. If the landlord wants the other son to establish his own business, the tenant cannot say that since the other son was assisting the first son in the business, in accommodating that other son, tenant would have to face more hardships. Further I find there to be nothing to demonstrate by the tenant that petitioners have not been able to find any alternative accommodate despite best efforts made by them. 8. In view of the above, I do not find the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority affirmed in appeal to be suffering from any vice of perversity. The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Shiraz Digitally signed by :- SHIRAZ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad