Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23472 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14888 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt Triveni Devi Respondent :- Smt Sunita Yadav And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Singh,Nitin Jain Counsel for Respondent :- Gopal Das Srivastava,Sr. Advocate Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Himanshu Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gopal Das Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by the order of Prescribed Authority directing for release of the tenanted accommodation in favour of the landlord finding her personal need to be bona fide one and also judgment passed by the appellate authority affirming the order passed by the prescribed authority. 3. The main plank of the argument advanced by Mr. P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate to question the findings on the point of bona fide need is that there were certain properties available to the landlord respondents to use for their personal need and considering the comparative hardship of the tenant petitioner, the release application deserved rejection. 4. It is submitted that the point of bona fide need has virtually remained undiscussed insofar as the son of the landlord- respondent No.- 1 is concerned and insofar as the other landlords are concerned namely respondent Nos. 2 & 3, they could have utilized their other properties more appropriately as compared to the sitting tenant who had been suggested to shift business to a distant place where she had no available accommodation except a residential house. 5. Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel for the respondent that suitability of accommodation has to be judged from the point of the view of landlord and the tenant is not supposed to suggest as to which accommodation is better for landlords in getting her son settled in business of medical shop and the other two landlords requiring accommodation for their personal use to run the business. It is further argued by Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent that merely because certain more properties were available to the landlord respondents that by itself could not be a ground to reject the release application holding that need was not bone fide one. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records. From the records, it clearly transpires that landlord respondent No.- 1, namely Smt. Sunita Yadav wanted to settle her son to run medical shop on a highway where the tenanted accommodation situate, whereas respondent Nos. 2 & 3, namely, Smt. Rakhi Yadav and her husband Onkar Yadav wanted to run their own independent business. 7. As far as running of a medical shop is concerned, the prescribed authority had returned a finding that the shop available on the highway would suit more for landlord to run a medical shop in comparison to the stone business being conducted by the tenant – respondent as she could have shifted the business to the location where the stone market in fact lies and where she has her residential accommodation. Prescribed authority has further returned a finding to the effect that for running a business of stone and girder the stone market place was ideal and even otherwise this business could have been run at other places as well. 8. The prescribed authority has discussed that considering the comparative hardships the tenant was in a better position to shift the business. Prescribed authority has also discussed that the tenant has not come up with the case that she had made a hectic search for an alternative accommodation and she failed. 9. Thus, the prescribed authority has found the need of the landlord-respondent to be genuine and bona fine one on the principle that landlord is the sole arbiter of his need. This order has come to be affirmed by appellate authority discussing the points raised to question the bona fide need and the comparative hardships. The order of Prescribed Authority warrants no interference.. 10. The judgment of the appellate authority discuses all the points upon which the grounds were raised like bona fide need and alternative accommodation as to comparative hardships point and regarding other available properties of the landlord. 11. Thus, I do not find any perversity in the judgment of the appellate authority so as to warrant interference in exercise of my extraordinary jurisdiction or superintending jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. Petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Atmesh Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad