Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49049 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1000125 of 2011 Petitioner :- Mahesh Chandra Srivastava Respondent :- Court Of Special Judge Aryuved Scam Addl. Distt. Judge Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Raman Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Jai Prakash Mathur,Krishna Gopal Mishra Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the respondents even in the revised call. 2. The present petition has been fled by the petitioner challenging an order dated 26.08.2011 whereby, the appeal preferred by the tenant against the judgment dated 09.12.2009 passed by the Prescribed Authority came to be allowed. 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner-landlord had instituted proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 seeking release of the shop which was under the tenancy of the respondents on a monthly rent of Rs.1200/-. While pleading the bona fide need, the landlord stated that he wanted to release of the said shop in question for earning livelihood. The pleadings with regard to that extent of the family members were also disclosed which included two daughters. It was also stated that part of the premises owned by the landlord was under the other tenant. 4. The trial court after considering the bona fide need as pleaded and the comparative hardship, decreed the application and directed for release of the premises vide order dated 09.12.2009. The said order was challenged by the tenant by preferring an appeal. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 26.08.2011. 5. While allowing the appeal, the appellate court was impressed by the facts that the daughters are unmarried at the time of filing of the application and now one of the daughters have been married and thus, the need had changed. The appellate court also held that the petitioner could not produce corroborative evidence to suggest that the wife and the daughters of the landlord were running the computer institute and conducted coaching classes and no documents such as service tax, etc. were produced. The appellate court further recorded that the unmarried daughters, who are allegedly running the institution had married. The said order of the appellant court cannot be justified for the sole reason that even after the marriage, the requirement of the landlord to keep the room vacant for the daughters for carrying out the purpose specified in the application will continue. The view with regard to the marriage of the daughter taken by the appellate court is wholly unjustified. The other reasoning recorded by the appellate court that the receipt etc. were not filed also merits rejection as normally these coaching institutions are running at a small level and do not possess the requisite tax receipt etc. 6. In view of above, the reasoning given by the appellate court cannot be held to be justified and the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order dated 26.08.2011 is quashed. The order of the prescribed authority dated 09.12.2009 is affirmed. The writ petition is allowed. 7. The petitioner would be entitled to take appropriate steps for evicting the tenants. In case, any application for execution of the order dated 09.12.2009 is filed, the same shall be considered and decided within six months. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 akverma Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench