Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25858 Court No. - 4 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1619 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Uma Mehrotra And 4 Others Respondent :- Mukul Prasad Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Rana,Prakash Chandra Dwivedi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Prasoon Tomar Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned Advocate assisted by Sri Prakash Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prasoon Tomar, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner before this Court has assailed the order of prescribed authority directing for release of the tenanted accommodation in favour of the landlord respondent as well as order of appellate authority whereby the order of the lease passed by the prescribed authority has been affirmed. The only short point argued before this Court is that the point of bona fide need has not been correctly decided by the prescribed authority in the face of the fact that another shop was got vacated by a tenant Mr. Prashant Bhatnagar, which was again let out by landlord during pendency of the present release application. The point of the argument is that there was no bona fide need as such qua shop in question as petitioner himself had let out another vacant shop during pendency of this release application. In support of his above argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this point was very much taken by the tenant bringing on record the relevant material to demonstrate that new tenancy was with Satyakriti Handlooms and that remained undisputed at the end of the landlord respondent. On the contrary, it has been argued by learned counsel appearing for the respondent Sri Prasoon Tomar that Mr. Prashant Bhatnagar in fact continued to pay rent until, 2019 and thereafter never paid rent, nor vacated the shop. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent has further submitted that shop where business is housed in fact is being run by Kshitij Gupta that belongs to his brother Arun Kumar. It is further argued that there were 13 shops available with the tenant petitioner in his own ownership at another place in the same city and he did not deny the same. According to him the only plea taken was that there was some dispute going on qua these shops and that shops situated in a narrow lane where the business could not be run. It is further argued that the tenant petitioner failed to lead any evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that those 13 shops were under dispute and that any case was going on in any court of law to get those shops vacated. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that 13 shops have come to be stated to be belonging to the tenant respondent in Mohalla Chahsiri of the city and this has been is absolutely admitted in paragraph 8 of the written statement while regarding their status, it has come to be averred that some dispute was going on but no case has been referred to, nor any evidence has been led by tenant petitioner in support of his pleadings so raised. Upon pointed query being made by Sri. Dayal, learned Senior Advocate as to whether there was any iota of evidence available on record to prove such pleadings, Mr. Dayal very fairly conceded that no such evidence was led . Thus it is clear that 13 alternative shops in the form of alternative accommodations available to the tenant in same city, therefore in such circumstances, tenant could not have taken the plea of comparative hardships to retain the shop of the landlord despite the fact that bona fide need had been set up to get shop released. In so far as the plea brought by virtue of amendment as to letting out the shop vacated by one Prashant Bhatnagar by landlord is concerned, I find it has been denied specifically by the land lord respondents in their objection filed and it was pleaded that Prashant Bhatnagar had continued in tenanted shop and that, he would be taking appropriate measures to get the shop released. It was also pleaded that Prashant Bhatnagar had inducted some one in the shop which amounted to subletting and the landlord respondent would be taking appropriate steps. This Court had passed a detailed order on 18th February, 2025 which runs as under: "Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Rana and Sri Prakash Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Prasoon Tomar, learned counsel for the respondent. Submission advanced by learned Senior Advocate is that there was in fact no bonafide need for the landlord to apply for release as another shop of the same dimension and measurement in the north side had got vacated in the year 2016 by the landlord/ respondent and yet he let it out to the another tenant namely Satyakirti Handlooms. Per contra Mr. Jitendra Kumar appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that there is absolute denial of the above fact and shop in question continues to be in tenancy of Mr. Bhatnagar. He prays for and is granted a week's time to bring on record the receipts of the payment of rent by Mr. Bhatnagar since 2016 onwards. The affidavit to that effect shall also be filed . List this matter again on 24.02.2025 on the top of the board. In the meanwhile, petitioners shall not be evicted from the shop in question without leave of this Court. " Respondent landlord has filed short counter affidavit in which it has been clearly averred that Satyakriti Handlooms is being run by one Kshitij Gupta and the shop owned by Arun Kumar and that shop has nothing to do with the shop under the tenancy of Prashant Bhatnagar. Receipts of payment of rent upto 13th January, 2019 has been filed in respect of shop under the tenancy of Mr. Prashant Bhatnagar. Learned Senior Advocate has not prayed any time to file reply to this affidavit and rather placed before the Court the registration of the Satyakriti Handlooms for the purposes of goods and services tax. In my considered view, merely because business is registered for the purpose of goods and service tax, it would not change the identity of the shop once the stand taken is that shop in which handloom was being run, was owned by Arun Kumar and not in tenancy of the Mr. Bhatnagar. The prescribed authority has dealt with facts and evidence meticulously and has held that if the tenant had 13 shops in his ownership, the comparative hardships would not tilt in his favour and he having not brought any evidence on record pending qua 13 shops, tenant could very well shift to his business to anyone to those 13 shops and tenant deserved to get the shop released in favour of landlord to run business. In such above view, I do not find any perversity in the order of the prescribed authority affirmed in appeal. It is well settled law that the landlord is sole arbitrator of his needs and tenant cannot suggest him to run business or to get any other accommodation to enable the tenant to release tenanted shop, more especially in the circumstances when the tenant has 13 shops in his own ownership. In view of above, petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Sanjeev Digitally signed by :- SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad