Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141192 Court No. - 37 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8716 of 2025 Petitioner :- Yogendra Singh And Another Respondent :- Smt. Manju Yadav And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chaudhary Subhash Kumar,Prem Chand Counsel for Respondent :- Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. Chaudhary Subhash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the proceeding under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P. Act No.13 of 1972") was initiated by plaintiff/ respondent no.1 (Smt. Manju Yadav) for release of the shop in her favour. The aforementioned proceeding was registered as P.A. Case No.3 of 2015 before prescribed authority / Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalaun at Orai. Petitioners / tenants appeared in the proceeding and filed their written statement. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their cases. Before the prescribed authority two issues were framed. Prescribed authority / Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide order dated 3.1.2022 allowed the release application filed by plaintiff-respondent no.1/ landlady and directed that petitioners / tenant to vacate the shop in question within period of two months. Against the order of prescribed authority dated 3.1.2022, rent appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 was filed before the District- Jalaun. The aforementioned rent appeal was registered as Rent Appeal No.6 of 2022. The aforementioned rent appeal was heard by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1/ Jalaun at Orai and vide order dated 21.5.2025, the appeal was dismissed. Hence this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: "issue order and direction and to set aside the order dated 3.1.2022 (Annexure No.1 to the Misc. petition) passed in P.A. No.03 of 2015 (Smt. Manju Yadav vs. Shivpal and another) as well as order dated 21.5.2025 (Annexure No.2 to the misc. petition) passed in rent control appeal no.06 of 2022 (Yogendra Singh and another vs. Manju Yadav and others)." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prescribed authority has illegally allowed the release application without considering the fact that landlady was permanently residing at Raipur and it was never her case that she had shifted at Jalaun for the purpose of running the coaching. He further submitted that the petitioners were not sub- tenant rather their father was joint tenant since 1979 and was running the business in the name and style of M/s New Bandhu Dresses and paying rent accordingly. He further submitted that the prescribed authority has ignored that no details of property income was provided by the landlady in order to demonstrate her bona-fide need in respect to the shop in question. He further submitted that another release application in respect to adjacent shop filed by the landlady on the same ground was allowed, as such, there was no bona-fide need in respect to the shop which is in possession of the petitioners. He further submitted that during pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure was filed but same was not taken into consideration while deciding the appeal by the appellate authority. He further submitted that both the impugned orders should be set aside and release application filed by the landlady / respondent no.1 should be dismissed. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.1/ landlady submitted that the release application was filed on the bona-fide need of the landlady. He further submitted that the prescribed authority has framed the issues and recorded categorical finding of fact that need setup by the landlady is bona-fide and genuine. He further submitted that the finding of fact has also been recorded by the prescribed authority that comparative hardship of the shop in question is in favour of the landlady in comparison to the tenant. He further submitted that the appellate Court has also framed the point of determination and has recorded finding that need of the landlady is bona-fide and genuine, as such, the shop in question should be released in favour of the landlady. He further submitted that the finding on comparative hardship has also been recorded in favour of the landlady, as such, there is no scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that the release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 filed by the landlady was allowed and appeal filed by the tenant has been dismissed. 7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter perusal of the two issues framed by the prescribed authority will be relevant, which are as under: ''1. कयय आववददकय कक पशनगत ददकयन कक वयसतदवक एवव सदयवव आवशयकतय हह? 2. पशनगत ददकयन कव दनरदरक हकनव सव तदलनयतरक कदठनयई दकस पक कक हकगव?" 8. The finding on both the issues were recorded considering the oral and documentary evidences adduced by the parties to the effect that need setup by the landlady is bona-fide and genuine and comparative hardship in respect to the shop in question is in favour of the landlady in comparison to the tenant. 9.The perusal of the points of determination framed by the appellate Court will be also relevant which are as under: " उपरकक तकरव कव पररपवकय रम पसतदत रयरलव रम दनमन लललखत अवधययर दबनदद ससलजत दकयव जयतव हहह- 1. कयय पतयरर/आववददकय/ लहणडलयडर कक पशनगत वयद तनहय (अकव लव) पसतदत करनव कय अलधकयर पयप हह? 2. कयय पतयरर/आववददकय/लहणडलयडर/ वयददनव कक दववयददत ददकयन कक सदयवव आवशयकतय हह? 3. कयय अपवलयररगण/ पदतवयदवगण कक आववददकय/ वयददनव कक अपवकय दववयददत ददकयन खयलव कर दवनव सव अलधक तदलनयतरक कदठनयई हकगव?" 10. The appellate Court has properly considered the locus of the landlady to file release application, bona-fide need as well as comparative hardship of the parties and recorded finding of fact that there is no illegality in the finding recorded by the prescribed authority as the need of the landlady is bona-fide and comparative hardship in respect to the shop in question is in favour of the landlady in comparison to tenant. 11. On the question of bona-fide need of the landlord, the Apex Court in the case reported in 2025 (3) ADJ 308, Kanahaiya Lal Arya vs. Md. Ehshan & Others has held that the landlord is a best judge to decide which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need and tenant has no role in dictating as to which premises of the landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in the suit for eviction. Paragraph nos.11,15 & 16 of the judgement of Apex Court rendered in Kanahaiya Lal Arya (supra) will be relevant, which are as under: "11. In the case at hand, the appellant-landlord may be having some other properties under tenancy of various persons but once he has decided to get the suit premises vacated for the bona fide need of establishing an ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons, he cannot be forced to initiate such a proceeding against the other tenants. It is for the appellant-landlord to take a decision in this regard and once he has decided to get the suit premises vacated, no error or illegality could be pointed out in his decision. Secondly, it has come on record by clear finding of the court of first instance that the suit premises is the most suitable accommodation for establishing an ultrasound machine. The reason being that it is situated adjacent to a medical clinic and a pathological centre and is the most appropriate place for establishing any medical machine. Moreover, the appellant-landlord has also proved his capacity to invest in purchasing/establishing an ultrasound machine and that his two sons are unemployed and as such the suit premises is required to establish them in business and to augment the family's income. Therefore, the bona fide need of the appellant-landlord stands duly established. 15. As would be evident from the above compromise, the decree for partial eviction from the premises occupied by the respondents-tenant was partially decreed in Second Appeal No.40/1983 on 31.03.1988 for the bona fide need of the appellant-landlord to establish his brother-in-law. The said need was altogether a different need. The said decree of the year 1988, even if not used for the purpose intended, it would not affect the rights of the appellant- landlord which accrues to him in the year 2001. The need of the appellant-landlord for getting the suit premises vacated for establishing his two sons has to be seen on the date of filing of the suit i.e., 28.11.2001. On the said date, the need of the appellant-landlord stands established. The said need would not get eroded by any earlier decree of eviction of the year 1988. 16. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant-landlord has proved his bona fide need for the suit premises. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 18.08.2022 and 25.09.2006 of the High Court and the First Appellate Court respectively are set aside. The suit of the appellant- landlord stands decreed." 12. Considering the ratio of law laid down by Apex Court in Kanahaiya Lal Arya (Supra) as well as finding recorded by the prescribed authority / appellate authority, there is no scope for interference against the concurrent judgements / orders passed by the prescribed authority and appellate authority. 13. The writ petition is dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner/ tenant is granted eight months time from today to vacate the shop in question subject to the following conditions: (a). Petitioners/ tenant shall file an undertaking before the prescribed authority within period of three weeks from today to the effect that he will handover peaceful possession of the shop in question to the respondent / landlady within period of eight months from the date of passing of this order. (b). Petitioners / tenant shall pay rent / damages of the shop in question to the landlord till the date petitioners/ tenant vacates the shop in question. (c). In the undertaking, petitioners / tenant shall also state that he will not create any third party interest in the shop in question. (d). In case of default of any of the condition mentioned above, protection granted by this Court shall automatically vacated. (e). In case shop in question is not vacated as per the undertaking given by the petitioners/ tenant, he shall be liable for contempt. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Rameez Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad