Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Sri Anil Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the writ petition by correcting the word “ allowed’ in place of word “dismissedl” wherever it has been typed that P.A. Case No. 2of 2004 was dismissed. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed by Sri A.K. Mehrotra and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record After the correction has been made in the writ petition learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record is perused. 3. This petition challenges the validity and correctness of the order and judgment dated 28.7.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar as well as the order and judgment dated 24.1.2011 passed by the appellate Court dismissing the Rent Control Appeal No. 21 of 2007, appended as Annexures-6 and 11 respectively to the writ petition. 4. The facts culled out from the records are that respondent landlord filed release application under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No. XXIII of 1972) in respect of a shop under the tenancy of the petitioner situated in Kasba Rabupura Pargana and Tehsil Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the shop in dispute). The aforesaid release application was registered as Rent Case No. 2 of 2004. 5. The petitioner tenant contested the release application by filing his objection dated 10.3.2005. He subsequently amended his objection by amending/incorporating certain paragraphs. These amended objections are appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 6. In support of their respective cases, the petitioner as well as the respondent filed affidavits and documents. 7. The case set-up by the petitioner tenant before the court below was that Sri Prem Nath Goel father of the landlord respondent was the actual owner of the property in dispute; that the respondent was living with his father and an unmarried brother Naresh Goel in a joint Hindu family; that Chandra Prakash Goel the landlord of the shop in dispute was helping his father in his business of cloth in the name and style of Prem Chand Cloth Merchant and that his father was in actual control and owned the said shop and business. The other brother of the landlord respondent Naresh Goel was doing his business independently and he had no concern with the father and his brother Chandra Prakash Goel. 8. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that father Sri Prem Chand Goel has 8 shops in the same market and in fact he had sold one of these shops during the pendency of aforesaid Rent Case No. 2 of 2004 to Sri Ashok Kumar in the month of January, 2005. The father had also filed Rent Case No. 2 of 2003, Prem Nath Goel ver*sus Dal Chand against another tenant namely, Sri Dal Chand for release of the shop under his tenancy. As Rent Case No. 2 of 2003 had been decreed in favour of the father Prem Chand Goel there was no bonafide need of the landlord Chandra Prakash Goel of the shop in dispute under the tenancy of the petitioner for he could establish his business in the shop got vacated from Sri Dal Chand but the Prescribed Authority by order dated 28.7.2007 has illegally allowed Rent Case No. 2 of 2004, Chandra Prakash ver*sus Virendra Kumar without application of mind and against the record. 9. The petitioner appears to have also moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. for filing certain rent receipts and voter list which was allowed by the appellate authority and thereafter he had also filed various rent receipts issued by the father of the respondent with regard to the rent having been paid to him by the petitioner tenant. 10. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.7.2007, the petitioner filed Rent Control Appeal No.21 of 2007 before the Court of District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar which was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 24.1.2011. 11. The orders and judgments passed by the Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 2 of 2004, Chandra Prakash Goel v. Virendra Kumar dated 28.7.2007 as well as of the appellate Court dated 24.1.2011 in RCA No. 21 of 2007 have been assailed on the ground that they are patently illegal and are liable to be set aside for the reason that the release application filed by Chandra Prakash Goel was not maintainable as his father Prem Chand Goel was the real owner of the shop in dispute. Apart from this plea, learned counsel for the petitioner has also assailed the orders impugned on the ground that the landlord could not establish his bonafide need of the shop in dispute as Sri Prem Nath Goel the father of the landlord/respondent had sold out a shop during pendency of the aforesaid Rent Case No. 2 of 2004 and as this vital aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Prescribed Authority as well as appellate Court the impugned judgments and orders are vitiated. It is argued that in any case the joint family of the respondent/ landlord has eight shops in the concerned market itself and despite specific pleadings in this regard the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate Court have failed to consider this aspect of the matter in their impugned orders and judgments for this reason also the orders impugned are liable to be set aside. 12. It is then submitted that admittedly the joint family of which respondent Chandra Prakash Goel and his father Prem Chand Goel are members have got possession of a adjoining shop previously under the tenancy of Sri Dal Chand who was tenant therein and the need of the respondent landlord was satisfied with the release application of aforesaid shop under the tenancy of Sri Dal Chand but the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate Court have failed to consider this aspect of the matter and that the courts below have also failed to consider that the petitioner would suffer greater hardship in case of his being evicted from the shop in dispute than the respondent as such the findings recorded by the courts below are perverse and liable to be quashed. 13. It is lastly submitted that the authorities below have failed to consider that the petitioner has made genuine efforts to search out an alternative shop and since no shop suitable to him was available in the market as such there was no occasion for the authorities below to record findings that no effort was made for searching the alternative accommodation by the tenant and findings in this regard are perverse. Sri Anil Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon paragraph 17 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in the court below wherein it is averred thus:- “^^17- ;g fd fookfnr nqdku u;k cktkj esa fLFkr gS ftlesa eSa tujy LVksj dk dkjksckj dj jgk gwWaA cktkj esa vU; dksbZ nqdku ekSds dh miyC/k ugha gS esjh vk; dk vU; dksbZ lk/ku ugha gSA csn[ky gksus ij esjk ifjokj Hkw[kk ej tk;sxkA oknh dk cktkj esa diM+s dk vPNk dkjksckj gSA egt vuqfpr :i ls fdjk;k c<+kus ds fy, eqdnek nk;j fd;k gS oknh dk izsepUnz DykFk epsZUV ds uke ls cktkj esa vPNk dkjksckj gS oknh rFkk mlds firk dks nqdku dh dksbZ vko';drk ugha gSA oknh vius firk ds ,tsUV dh gSfl;r ls fdjk;k izkIr dj jgk gSA oknh dk ;g dguk fd nqdku cUn jgrh gS vkSj eSa ukSdjh djrk gw¡ drbZ xyr gSA fookfnr nqdku dk dkjksckj gh esjk thfodk dk ,d ek= lk/ku gSA oknh dk ;g dguk fd eSaus dkjksckj cUn dj fn;k vkSj eSa fla?kyk jsMhesV xkjesUVl ,.M tujy LVksj esu cktkj jcwiqjk dh nqdku ij ukSdjh djrk gw¡ drbZ xyr gSA eSa fookfnr nqdku eas viuk dk;Z dj jgk gw¡ eky [kjhn ds rktk fcy eSa nkf[ky dj jgk gw¡A ;g og fcy gS ftuls eSa eky [kjhndj viuh nqdku ij ykrk gw¡A ;g vly :i eas gSA** 14. Statement on affidavit has been filed by Sri Om Prakash son of late Babu Ram Garg in support of the tenant Virendra Kumar. In paragraph 11 of the affidavit of Sri Om Prakash it has been stated that- ^^;g fd cktkj esa dksbZ nqdku ekSds dh [kkyh ugha gSA** 15. Similarly Sri Rotash son of late Murari Lal resident of Anajmandi Khupura, District Gautam Budh Nagar has also filed affidavit in support of the tenant wherein in paragraph 6 it has been averred that- ^^;g fd bl le; cktkj esa ,slh ekSds dh dksbZ nqdku fdjk;s ds fy, [kkyh ugha ftlesa ohjsUnz dqekj viuh xqMfcy dh gSfl;r ls dkjksckj djds vius ifjokj dks iky ldsA ** 16. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has submitted that the petitioner has not been able to prove that the business of Prem Chandra Goel father of the respondent was a joint Hindu family business and he was ‘KARTA’ of the family. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has submitted that the petitioner has not been able to prove that the business of Prem Chandra Goel father of the respondent was a joint Hindu family business and he was ‘KARTA’ of the family. He submits that on the contrary it is evident from the pleadings of the tenant and from the record that the father has his own eight shops and was doing his business independently and separately from his sons; that he had gifted the shop in dispute to his son Chandra Prakash Goel the respondent landlord in the writ petition for establishing himself in independent business and that Naresh Goel the another brother of Chandra Prakash Goel was already doing independent business and had no concern with the brother or his father. According to him, in the circumstances, the case set-forth by the petitioner that respondent Chandra Prakash Goel, was a member of the joint Hindu family is completely shattered as neither there is any basis for such pleading of joint Hindu family business nor it was proved by the tenant petitioner. 17. It is urged that in so far as the rent receipts filed by the petitioner tenant in respect of the shop in dispute showing that the same have been issued by the father of the respondent/landlord is concerned, it has been sufficiently explained in the courts below where the respondent landlord has demonstrated that at the time when the shop in dispute was gifted he was minor and as such the rent receipts were issued by his father. Later on, when he attained the majority he was collecting the rent and issuing the rent receipts in his name, therefore, the rent receipts issued by his father when the respondent landlord was a minor is of no consequence. Considering the evidence, the Court held that on attaining the age of majority in July, 2002 the landlord Chandra Prakash Goel started collecting rent from the tenant of his shop namely, Virendra Kumar and also issued receipt for the same. Considering the evidence, the Court held that on attaining the age of majority in July, 2002 the landlord Chandra Prakash Goel started collecting rent from the tenant of his shop namely, Virendra Kumar and also issued receipt for the same. The finding of the appellate Court with regard to rent receipts and ownership relied upon by the counsel for the respondents is as under:- ^^vihykFkhZ ds vksj ls vihy ds Lrj ij tks fdjk;s dh jlhnsa izLrqr dh xbZ gSa] muls rFkk i=koyh ij fLFkr 'kiFki= o vU; lk{;ksa ls ;g iw.kZr;k Li"V gS fd lu~ 1987 esa iz’uxr nqdku izkFkhZ @ pUnz izdk’k xks;y ds firk izsepUnz xks;y }kjk vihykFkhZ dks fdjk;s ij nh xbZ Fkh vkSj tc ls ogha fdjk;k izkIr djds jlhnsa tkjh djrs jgs] fdUrq tqykbZ 2002 ls fdjk;k pUnz izdk’k xks;y }kjk Lo;a izkIr djds jlhnsa tkjh dh tkus yxhA o"kZ 1986 o 1987 esa pUnz izdk’k xks;y }kjk vo;Ldrk ds le; mDr Hkou dz; fd;k tkuk Hkh Li"V gSA vr% Li"V gS fd mDr Hkou pUnz izdk’k xks;y ds uke vafdr gS vkSj vfHkys[kh; lk{; ds vuqlkj ogh blds Lokeh gSaA izse pUnz xks;y us vo;Ldrk dky esa laj{kd ds :i esa rRi’pkr ,tsUV ds :i esa fdjk;k olwyus o jlhnsa tkjh djuk dgk gSA tqykbZ 2002 ls vihykFkhZ Lo;a gh fdjk;k izR;FkhZ pUnz izdk’k xks;y dks gh nsuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA mDr i=koyh ij fLFkr lk{; ds vkyksd esa ;g mfpr fu"d"kZ gS fd izkFkhZ pUnz izdk’k xks;y gh iz’uxr nqdku ds Lokeh gSaA vo;Ldrk dky esa firk dh nqdku fdjk;s ij nsuk] rRi’pkr fdjk;k olwyus ls nqdku ds LokfeRo ij dksbZ izHkko ugha iM+rkA tqykbZ 2002 ls vihykFkhZ us fdjk;k izkFkhZ pUnz izdk’k xks;y dks nsdj mlds LokfeRo ds rF; dks Lohdkj Hkh fd;k gSa vr% bl lEcU/k esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"kZ esa dksbZ voS/krk ;k =qfV ugha gSA** 18. It is then argued that the shop under the tenancy of Sri Dal Chand was got vacated by Prem Chand Goel, who was landlord of the shop under the tenancy of Sri Dal Chand, therefore, bonafide need and comparative hardship of Chandra Prakash, the landlord of shop in dispute cannot be defeated by the tenant on the ground that shop of Sri Dal Chand was got vacated by father of the respondent landlord in his own right. It is stated that the shop in dispute is the only shop available to the petitioner which is required for setting up his independent business as such vacation of shop by Sri Dal Chand does not satisfy the need of the landlord respondent as that the shop belongs to his father. 19. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon paragraphs 6,7,8.9 and 13 of the judgment rendered in Chandra Bhan v. VIIIth Additional District Judge, Agra and others, ARC, 1992(1)-477. After discussing the case of the tenant and the definition of family in paragraph nos. 6,7,8 and 9 the court found that bonafide need and hardship in favour of the landlord and thereafter in paragraph 13 held that the property available with father and mother cannot be considered as accommodation available to the petitioner in that case. Paragraphs 6,7,8,9 and 13 are thus:- “6. The learned Judge himself made inspection of the premises and submitted inspection report being paper No. 38-Ka. Learned Judge also found that the release of the disputed shop would be necessary for construction of the show room of the size of 15’x15' to establish the landlady’s husband in business of agency. The other property where Oil Expeller business was being carried out was also inspected by the learned Judge. But in this property it was found that some Tobacco business was being carried on by the father of Sri Jitendra Kumar. As this property did not belong to the landlady and as her father-in-law would not be included within definition of ‘family’ the property cannot be treated as an alternative accommodation. Moreover, this property is not on the main road, and, as such, is not suitable for establishing a show room. The another shop in which the younger brother of Sri Jitendra Kumar was doing business was also inspected but this shop was also found not available for the husband of the landlady, for the reason that did not belong to the landlady. The learned Judge for the reasons stated above, came to the conclusion that the need of the landlady to establish her husband in agency business of M/s Forsoc Technology Limited, Barmingham, and for construction of a show room of 15’x15' size the disputed shop is bonafidely required. 7. The learned Judge for the reasons stated above, came to the conclusion that the need of the landlady to establish her husband in agency business of M/s Forsoc Technology Limited, Barmingham, and for construction of a show room of 15’x15' size the disputed shop is bonafidely required. 7. On comparing the hardship it has been held that the tea stall shop would not earn any good will and it is a small hotel which can be established any where else. The tenant had not made any effort to obtain any alternative accommodation and, as such, the need of the landlady were found to be more pressing than that of the tenant. 8. That order dated 31.5.1989 has been assailed in the present writ petition on the following grounds, firstly, that there was no necessity of constructing show room of 15’x15' and if at all any show room was required to be constructed, the same can be constructed in the accommodation already available with the landlady in the adjoining shop and the accommodation, behind the two shops which was already in possession of the landlady. Secondly the requirement of show room 15’x15' has been devised as a method of occupy the disputed shop and the alleged letter of the company dated 27.3.1987 had been procured in the present case after the release application was dismissed by the learned Prescribed Authority. It has also alleged that the accommodation where oil expeller was being carried on was also available for Jitendra Kumar as he is jointly living with his father Sri Lal Ram Gopal and they constitute Hindu United Family which possesses a large number of properties including the shop purchased by Smt. Vimla Devi, the mother of Sri Jitendra Kuamr. 9. It has been contended that the learned Judge grossly erred in holding that the property owned by the father-in-law and that mother-in-law of the landlady cannot be considered as they are not included in the family of the landlady within definition of ‘family’ as contained under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 9. It has been contended that the learned Judge grossly erred in holding that the property owned by the father-in-law and that mother-in-law of the landlady cannot be considered as they are not included in the family of the landlady within definition of ‘family’ as contained under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The husband of the landlady, who was required to be established in business, was jointly living with his father and constituted a Hindu United Family and had every claim rand right over the property owned by his father and mother and the learned Judge illegally held that these properties cannot be taken into consideration for the requirement of Sri Jitendra Kumar. 10........................ 11......................... 12....................... 13. The learned Judge was not correct in holding that the property available with the father and mother of Jitendra Kumar cannot be considered as the accommodation available to the landlady to settle her husband in business as they do not constitute members of the family of respondent no.2 within definition of ‘family’ as contained in the provisions of the Act.” 20. After hearing the counsel for the parties, perusal of record as well as perusal of the orders impugned show that both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts that respondent Chandra Prakash Goel is the landlord of the shop in dispute and he has bonafide need of the same. After hearing the counsel for the parties, perusal of record as well as perusal of the orders impugned show that both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts that respondent Chandra Prakash Goel is the landlord of the shop in dispute and he has bonafide need of the same. The findings on bonafide need by the appellate Court are thus:- ^^iz’uxr nqdku ds okLrfod ln~Hkkoukiw.kZ vko’;drk dk tgka rd iz’u gS] jsUV dsl esa izkFkhZ pUnz izdk’k xks;y us Lo;a ds O;olk; ds fy, nqdku fjDr djk;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls rdZ gS fd ;fn ;kph vius firk dh nqdku ij cSBrk gS vkSj muds O;olk; dks laHkkyrk gS rks mls Hkh vius O;olk; ds fy, nqdku [kkyh djkus dk vf/kdkj gS] D;ksafd mlds ikl dksbZ vU; nqdku ugha gSA tc fd fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ }kjk rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ vius firk dh nqdku dks laHkkyrk gS] firk o‘) gks x;s gSa] ftUgksaus iwjk mRrjnkf;Ro izkFkhZ pUnz izdk’k xks;y dks lkSai fn;k gSA i=koyh ij fLFkr lk{; ls dLck jcwiqjk esa izsepUnz xks;y DykFk epsZUV ds uke ls diM+s dh nqdku Li"V gS rFkk vihykFkhZ ds vuqlkj lEiw.kZ O;olk; izR;FkhZ pUnz izdk’k xks;y gh laHkkyrk gS] D;ksafd firk izsepUnz o‘) gks x;s gSaA bl lEcU/k esa U;k;ky; us izsepUnz xks;y ds U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksus ij ;g fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr fd;k gS fd og mrus o‘) ugha fn[krs fd og viuk O;olk; u dj ldrs gksaA blds lkFk gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us pUnz izdk’k xks;y dks Lo;a ds fy, viuk O;olk; djus dk vf/kdkj ekurs gq, mudh vko’;drk dks ln~Hkkoukiw.kZ ekukA** 21. As regards question of helping his father in business in the shop run by his father in the name of style of Prem Chand Cloth Merchant and bonafide need of the landlord the court recorded finding of fact that admittedly the shop was of the father and since merely because the petitioner was engaging himself by sitting with his father would not take away his bonafide need to establish himself in independent business in his own in the shop in dispute which was gifted to him by his father. The Court below considering the respective case of the parties found that need of the landlord was bonafide and relying upon the decision rendered in Kanhaiya Lal and another v. The District Judge, Ballia, 2009(75) AIR 1975 page 89 held that the Prescribed Authority has not committed any illegality in coming to the conclusion that need of shop in dispute of the landlord would not be extinguished in the facts and circumstances of this case. The appellate Court while affirming the order and judgment of the Prescribed Authority held that- ^^;g Hkh fl)kUr izfrikfnr gS fd ;fn fdjk;snkj }kjk viuh dksbZ oSdfYid O;oLFkk djus dk iz;kl ugha fd;k x;k gS rks rqyukRed dfBukbZ Hkou Lokeh ds i{k esa ekuh tk;sxhA dUgS;kyky ,oa vU; cuke ftyk tt cfy;k 2009 ¼75½ ,-vkbZ-vkj- 89 esa ;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr gS fd ;fn iq= firk ds O;olk; esa lg;ksx dj jgk gS rks ;g mlds LorU= O;olk; gsrq nqdku [kkyh djkus ds izkFkZuk i= dks fujLr djus dk vk/kkj ugha gks ldrkA bl izdkj mijksDr mfYyf[kr ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds fof/kd n‘"VkUrksa esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ls ;g Li"V gS fd ;fn iq= vius firk ds lkFk O;olk; dj jgk gS] ;k O;olk; esa lg;ksx dj jgk gS rks ;g mlds LorU= O;olk; izkjEHk djus ds vf/kdkj dks ckf/kr ugha djsxk vkSj og O;fDrxr vko’;drk ds vk/kkj ij O;olk; djus gsrq nqdku [kkyh djkus gsrq vkosnu dj ldrk gS vkSj mldh vko’;drk ln~Hkkoukiw.kZ ekuh tk;sxhA izLrqr jsUV okn esa foi{kh ohjsUnz dqekj dh vkjs ls izLrqr 'kiFki= 26 x] 27x] 28x] ,oa 29x esa ;g dFku gS fd izkFkhZ pUnz izdk’k xks;y vius firk ds lkFk izsepUnz DykFk epsZUV ds uke ls nqdku esa O;olk; djrk gSA tc fd iz’uxr Hkou Lo;a pUnz izdk’k xks;y ds uke gS vkSj og vius firk dh nqdku ls vyx viuk Lo;a dk O;olk; izkjEHk djuk pkgrk gSA vr% /kkjk &21 vf/kfu;e la[;k&13 lu~ 1972 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj mijksDr mfYyf[kr fof/kd n‘"VkUrksa ds vkyksd esa izR;FkhZ@izkFkhZ pUnz izdk’k xks;y dh vko’;drk ln~Hkkoh ekuus esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us dksbZ =qfV ugha dh gS vkSj mDr fu"d"kZ i=koyh ij fLFkr vfHkys[kh; lk{; ij vk/kkfjr gSA” 22. As regards comparative hardship of the landlord and respondent, the court has considered this aspect of the matter also and has found that the petitioner tenant has denied the ownership of respondent Chandra Prakash Goel as landlord and has not established his hardship as a tenant. As regards comparative hardship of the landlord and respondent, the court has considered this aspect of the matter also and has found that the petitioner tenant has denied the ownership of respondent Chandra Prakash Goel as landlord and has not established his hardship as a tenant. The Court found that admittedly, the petitioner tenant claims to carry on his business in the shop in dispute since 1987. His reason for not releasing of the shop in dispute is that the shop has earned a goodwill and if he is directed to vacate it, he would for this reason suffer greater hardship. The courts below have also considered this argument of the petitioner as well as the argument of shop got vacated by the father of the landlord from Sri Dal Chand and sale of another shop by his father and held that even if a shop has been sold out by the father Sri Prem Chandra Goel in favour of his son Chandra Prakash Goel now landlord of the shop in dispute, it will have no effect upon the bonafide need and comparative hardship of the respondent landlord for establishing himself independently in business. The relevant extract of the findings recorded in the impugned order of the appellate Court are thus:- “tgka rd iz’u xr nqdku [kkyh gksus dh fLFkfr esa rqyukRed dfBukbZ dk iz’u gS] v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us bl vk/kkj ij bl fcUnq ij fopkj okLrfod :i ls ugha fd;k gS fd fdjk;snkj }kjk Hkou Lokeh ds LokfeRo ls bUdkj fd;k x;k gSa bl izdkj dfBukbZ fdjk;snkj us ugha n’kkZ;h gS vkSj ek= rduhdh vk/kkj ij nqdku [kkyh djus ls cpuk pkgrk gSA bl lEcU/k esa vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd vihykFkhZ o"kZ 1987 ls iz’uxr nqdku esa O;olk; dj jgk gS vksj fclkr[kkus dh mldh nqdku dh vPNh xqMfcy gS rFkk dksbZ vU; nqdku Hkh miyC/k ugha gSA vr% csn[ky fd;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa mls vR;Ur dfBukbZ gksxhA tc fd izR;Fkh@izkFkhZ pUnz izdk’k xks;y ds firk ds ikl vyx nqdku Hkh gSA fodz; foys[k dh izfrfyfi izLrqr djrs gq, izsepUnz xks;y }kjk nqdku [kkyh djkdj cspus dk mYys[k gS rFkk vf/kfu;e la[;k&13 lu~ 1972 ds fu;e 16 ¼2½ ¼,½ m)`r djrs gq, fdjk;snkj ds yEcs le; ls O;olk; ds vk/kkj ij rqyukRed dfBukbZ vihykFkhZ ds i{k esa gksus dk dFku fd;k x;k gSA fof/kd n`"VkUr enuekgu vxzoky cuke xzhl dqekj f}osnh 2009 ¼73½ ,-vkbZ-vkj- 445 m)`r fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa Hkou Lokeh }kjk ,d Hkou cspus ds dqN gh eghus ckn nwljk Hkou [kkyh djkus gsrq izkFkZuk i= izLrq djus ij vko’;drk dks ln~Hkkoh ugha ekukA tgkWa rd izLrqr ekeys dk iz’u gS] pUnz izdk’k xks;y }kjk dksbZ Hkh nqdku cspus dk dFku vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls ugha gSA izsepUnz xks;y }kjk ;fn dksbZ nqdku csph Hkh xbZ gks rks bldk dksbZ izHkko pUnz izdk’k xks;y dh ln~Hkkoh vko’;drk ij ugha iM+rkA eksgEen vyhe cuke vfuy eksgEen vCckl 1889 ¼1½ ,-vkj-lh- 330 vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk m)`r gS] ftlesa ;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr /kkjk &20 ¼2½ DykFk ¼,Q½ ds lEcU/k ds laca/k esa ikfjr gS tc fd izLrqr ekeyk /kkjk &21 ls lEcfU/kr gS blh izdkj eksgEen vkfjQ cuke prqFkZ vij ftyk tt vyhx<+ 1984 ¼2½ ,-vkj-lh- 255 esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr Hkh /kkjk&20 ¼2½ ¼,Q½ ds lEcU/k esa izfrikfnr gSA tgkWa rd fu;e 16 ¼2½ ¼,½ vf/kfu;e la[;k 13 lu~ 1972 dk iz’u gSa mDr fu;e ds vuqlkj ;fn fdjk;snkj dkQh le; ls iz’uxr nqdku esa O;olk; dj jgk gS rks nqdku [kkyh djkus dk mruk gh de vkSfpR; gksxk] ftlds vk/kkj ij ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd vihykFkhZ 1987 ls iz’uxr nqdku esa O;olk; dj jgk gSA vr% mls [kkyh djk;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSa fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ }kjk cq)w yky cuke ftyk tt bykgkckn 1998 ¼33½ ,0vkbZ-vkj 346 m)`r fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa ekuuh; U;k;kus ;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd /kkjk&21 ¼1½ ¼,½ ds vUrxZr ln~Hkkoukiw.kZ vko’;drk dks bl vk/kkj ij lekIr ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd fdjk;snkj dks ;fn csn[ky fd;k tkrk gS rks mls dfBukbZ gksxhA pUnz izdk’k xks;y izkFkhZ }kjk jsUVokn esa ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd mlds ikl ;g ,d ek= nqdku gS] ftlesa og viuk O;olk; djuk pkgrk gSA mldh vko’;drk dks mijksDr foospu esa lnHkkoh ekuk x;k gSA vr% Lo;a dh nqdku gksrs gq, ;fn og viuk LorU= O;olk; LFkkfir ugha dj ikrk gS rks mls dfBukbZ gksuk LokHkkfod gSA tgkWa rd rqyukRed dfBukbZ dk iz’u gS] vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd bl nqdku esa vius O;olk; ls vius ifjokj dk Hkj.k&iks"k.k dj jgk gSA nqdku [kkyh djkus dh fLFkfr esa og dkQh ladV esa Qal tk;sxkA jcwiwjk esu cktkj esa vU; LFkku dksbZ nqdku ugha gSA 'kiFki= 28x egsUnz dqekj esa ;g dFku gS fd 17&18 lky ls ohjsUnz dqekj bl nqdku esa fclkr [kkus dk dkjksckj dj jgk gS] mlds ikl vkSj dksbZ vk; dk lk/ku ugha gSA ohjsUnz dqekj }kjk dksbZ oSdfYid nqdku gsrq iz;kl fd;k x;k vkSj vU; nqdku miyC/k ugha gS] ,slk dksbZ dFku ugha gSA yEcs le; ls O;olk; djuk ;k mlls xqMfcy gks tkus ij fof/k dh ea’kk ;g dnkfi ugha gks ldrh fd fdjk;snkj dHkh Hkh nqdku [kkyh ugha djsxk] cfYd vko’;drk rqyukRed dfBukbZ ij fopkj djus ds fofu’p; dk gSA ohjsUnz dqekj }kjk Lo;a vius 'kiFk&i= 26 x esa bl izdkj dk dksbZ dFku ugha gS fd mlus fodYi esa nqdku ryk’k djus dk D;k iz;kl fd;k vkSj mls dksbZ nqdku ugha feyh] cfYd ;g dFku ek= gS fd mlds firk o ifjokj ds fdlh vU; lnL; ds ikl dksbZ nqdku ugha gSA vihykFkhZ }kjk fdjk;s ij vU; nqdku <w¡<+us dk iz;kl fd;k x;k] ,slk dFku ugha fd;k x;k gSA mijksDr mfYyf[kr fof/kd n`"VkUr t;jkr xqIrk ,oa t;jke oekZ us ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd fdjk;snj }kjk fodYi ds ryk'k esa dksbZ iz;kl ugha fd;k x;k gS rks rqyukRed dfBukbZ Hkou Lokeh ds i{k esa ekuh tk;sxhA vr% bl izdkj izR;FkhZ pUnz izdk'k xks;y dh Lo;a dh nqdku jgrs gq, ;fn mls vius O;olk; gsrq mDr nqdku ln~Hkkoh vko';drk gksus ds okctwn miyC/k ugha djk;h tkrh gS rks rqyukRed dfBukbZ izR;FkhZ pUnz izdk'k xks;y dks vf/kd gSA** 23. In the supplementary affidavit it is averred that the petitioner filed an application along with an affidavit for inspection of the concerned shop vacated by Sri Dal Chand at the appellate stage. This application was objected to by the landlord Chandra Prakash Goel on the ground that the shop vacated by Sri Dal Chand has no concern with the shop in dispute as the shop which has been vacated by Sri Dal Chand belongs to his father Prem Chandra Goel. In this regard, the appellate Court vide its order dated 15.4.2008 directed that the question of effect of vacation of shop by Sri Dal Chand shall be considered at the time of hearing. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no finding in this regard. 24. It appears from reading of the judgment of the appellate Court that this point was not pressed during the arguments before the appellate Court, therefore, it has not referred the same as neither any review had been filed by the petitioner in this regard that no order on application aforesaid had been passed at the time of final hearing of the case nor any such ground has been taken by the petitioner in his writ petition. 25. From perusal of the judgment of the courts below it is apparent that the respondent landlord had come out with the case that in Kasba Rabupura many shops are vacated and the petitioner tenant could have taken any one of these on rent. It is not the case of the petitioner that no shop at all was available to him in the market. What is emphasized by the learned counsel for the petitioner tenant in his own affidavit and on affidavits filed by Om Prakash and Rohtash is that no vacant shop available in the market i.e. “dksbZ nqdku ekSds dh [kkyh ugha gSA* 26. The courts below have considered this aspect of the matter and have come to the conclusion that the shops were vacated by many persons in the market but in fact No effort was made by the petitioner tenant for taking any one of them on rent as according to him, no shop was suiting him for doing business. 27. The courts below have considered this aspect of the matter and have come to the conclusion that the shops were vacated by many persons in the market but in fact No effort was made by the petitioner tenant for taking any one of them on rent as according to him, no shop was suiting him for doing business. 27. A shop may not suit a person for any number of real or imaginary reasons which could be that he did not want to pay market rent for these shops or he found himself more comfortable in the shop in dispute or there was any deficiency in the shop available. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the tenant to prove which shops were available in the market for which he made efforts to take on rent and why these particular shops did not suit him. A mere bald statement may not be sufficient to the effect that since he did not make any real and sincere effort to get a shop during pendncy of litigation as such the courts below have rightly come to the conclusion with regard to comparative hardship on this score etc. Thus, both the Courts below having recorded concurrent findings of fact in favour of the landlord regarding the bonafide need and comparative hardship allowing the release application and direction in this regard and no illegality, infirmity or perversity having been shown by the counsel in the orders impugned in the writ petition as such the Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders of the courts below in exercise of its extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 28. For all the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Petition dismissed) _____________