JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Pramod Jain, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri P.K. Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anil Kumar Tripathi, Advocate for the respondents. 2. This is tenant’s writ petition. He is aggrieved by jdugment dated 4th April, 2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Meerut (Appellate Court) whereby it has allowed Rent Control Appeal No. 140 of 1996 preferred by landlord-respondent against judgment and order dated 15th December, 1996 of Judge Small Cause Court/Prescribed Authority, Meerut. The Prescribed Authority dismissed release application of respondent-landlords but Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment, has reversed the same, as a result whereof, release application of respondent-landlords has been allowed. 3. The facts in brief giving rise to the present dispute are as under: 4. The dispute relates to a shop leased out to M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate, a partnership firm, of which petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are partners. Sri Sushil Chand Gupta (since deceased and now substituted by legal heirs, namely, respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4) and respondent No. 5, Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, instituted proceedings for release of shop in dispute filing application under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”) claiming that shop No. 619 situated in Mohalla Sardar Patel Ganj, Meerut City alongwith its open space, bounded by four walls, is owned by them and be released from tenancy of petitioner-tenants. It was pleaded that shop was let out initially to M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate, a partnership concern but subsequently they sublet it to M/s Hansraj Co. Pvt. Ltd.. 5. The application was contested and opposed by petitioners filing their written statement dated 15.11.1991. Besides other, they also denied allegation of sub-letting. They pleaded that applicant-landlords possess several properties in Meerut City, living in joint family, and actually have no genuine need of shop in dispute. The details of various business establishment being run by respondent-landlords and their family members were also disclosed in paras 16 to 22 of written statement. 6. The respondent-landlords thereafter preferred an amendment application dated 3.2.1992 stating that Sudhindra Kumar Gupta is not carrying any business but only a Director in a Firm. The aforesaid amendment was allowed on 2.7.1992. The details of various business establishment being run by respondent-landlords and their family members were also disclosed in paras 16 to 22 of written statement. 6. The respondent-landlords thereafter preferred an amendment application dated 3.2.1992 stating that Sudhindra Kumar Gupta is not carrying any business but only a Director in a Firm. The aforesaid amendment was allowed on 2.7.1992. Thereafter another amendment sought in release application so as to add ground of release under Section 21(1)(b) of Act, 1972 alleging that shop is in dilapidated condition and need to be demolished and reconstructed. This amendment was also allowed on 3.2.1993. A third amendment sought in regard to averments relating to preparation of Architect Engineer’s report and this amendment was allowed on 16.8.1993 by the Prescribed Authority. 7. The petitioners also filed additional written statement in order to reply the amended release application. 8. Sudhindra Kumar Gupta (respondent No. 2) led evidence by filing an affidavit dated 14th June, 1994 in which he admitted to be a Director in a company, M/s Dhir Finance Pvt. Ltd., alongwith Shri Sarish Chand Gupta, father of respondent No. 5. It is also stated that he is running a Cinema Hall in partnership. In respect to other businesses also, he admitted that he is one of Director in M/s G.S. Iron and Steel Works (Rolling Mill), Meerut. He also said that there is a joint family carrying a joint business. 9. Since shop in dispute was let out to a business establishment namely M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate, and being a company, it was managed by a duly appointed manager, Sri Kishan Chand Gupta, an affidavit was filed by him to support defence taken by tenants in their written statement. 10. The details of joint business, which have been referred to by Prescribed Authority, run by respondents-landlords, are as under: A. Odean Cinema, Ishwarpuri, Meerut running under partnership of the landlord. B. M/s Dheer Finance Pvt. Ltd.—Landlord are Director. C. Big Agriculture Farming Business D. G.S.Iron and Steel Works (Rolling Mill) Bhola Road, Meerut. E. Pipe Factory, Bhola Road, Meerut. 11. The Prescribed Authority, vide judgment dated 15.12.1996, looking to all aspects of the matter, found that petitioner-landlords have failed to demonstrate and prove their claim of personal need, to be bona fide and genuine, and hardship also does not lie in their favour, consequently rejected release application. E. Pipe Factory, Bhola Road, Meerut. 11. The Prescribed Authority, vide judgment dated 15.12.1996, looking to all aspects of the matter, found that petitioner-landlords have failed to demonstrate and prove their claim of personal need, to be bona fide and genuine, and hardship also does not lie in their favour, consequently rejected release application. Aggrieved thereto, respondents-landlords preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 140 of 1996, which has been allowed by respondent No. 1 vide judgment and order dated 4.4.2003, impugned in this writ petition. 12. The Appellate Court has declined to give due credit to the defence of tenants on the ground that instead of filing affidavit of any of the Directors, the same has been filed by a person who was manager without there being any reason as to why partners or Director could not file their affidavits. It further observed that appellant-landlords have specifically stated in their affidavit that from various business, they are running, income and earning is not commensurating to their status. The two landlord applicants are not doing any independent business and therefore, they are entitled to live according to their status and hence their need is genuine. 13. Sri Promod Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that on the question of income etc., there is no evidence whatsoever except of oral ipse dixit of respondents-landlords and that too not disclosed by them initially in their release application and later by way of any evidence. When tenant disclosed in the written statement about various business establishment run by landlords, they simply stated that in different business, either they are Director or partners, and most of establishments are running in loss. No statement of account or document was placed before the Court below to show that any of the businesses was running in losses. Though the claim of respondent-landlords in regard to alleged losses etc. was specifically and categorically contested by the petitioner-tenants, but the lower Appellate Court in a whimsical manner, without any evidence has simply recorded its conclusion. 14. Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of landlord-respondents, on the contrary, pleaded that Appellate Court has rightly drawn adverse inference and has not erred in law in relying on the affidavit filed by respondent-landlords which was not controverted by tenant itself. 15. 14. Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of landlord-respondents, on the contrary, pleaded that Appellate Court has rightly drawn adverse inference and has not erred in law in relying on the affidavit filed by respondent-landlords which was not controverted by tenant itself. 15. From record I find that assertion made by respondent-landlords that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate is a partnership firm was specifically contested by petitioners in para 3 of their written statement and it has been specifically said that it is a private limited company. The company is running business in disputed shop for the last 60 years is another fact mentioned in para 14 of written statement. It is also admitted by respondent-landlords that shop in dispute was let out to M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate. This is evident from averments made in para 3 of the application and the relevant parts is as under: ^;g fd nqdku fookfnr nsgyh vk;ju flUMhdsV tks lk>snkjh dh QeZ Fkh dks fdjk;s ij nh xbZ FkhA^^ “That the disputed shop was let out to Delhi Iron Syndicate, which was a partnership firm” (English Transaction by the Court) 16. The Appellate Court, on this aspect, has not applied its mind and there is no finding otherwise i.e. M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate is not a Private Limited company but a partnership firm. That being so, a Company, not being a natural person, but a juristic personality, is managed by various employees and officers, which includes Directors as also managers. The directors of a company as such are not owners or partners but they are also employees of Company. They are in the capacity of management. It is in these circumstances, a person who was managing firm or company, namely Kishan Chand Gupta, who was admittedly Manager of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate, filed his affidavit to give evidence, in the present case, cannot be said to be a person, unauthorised or incompetent to give evidence. The Appellate Court, in my view, has erred in law by discarding his affidavit on the ground that owners have not filed their affidavit for the reason that in a Private Limited company all the share holders may constitute owner of Company but they are not directly involved in management of company. The Appellate Court, in my view, has erred in law by discarding his affidavit on the ground that owners have not filed their affidavit for the reason that in a Private Limited company all the share holders may constitute owner of Company but they are not directly involved in management of company. In such state of affairs, person responsible for managing affairs of company are duly entitled and competent to act in such manner as individual proprietor or partners acts in a business establishment. 17. Coming to the second aspect of the matter, Appellate Court in para 9, on page 111 of the paper book has simply observed that respondent-landlords are not earning adequately so as to maintain their status according to their family position. Wherefrom and on what basis it could find so, has neither been referred to nor discussed. When enquired from learned counsel for the respondents as to what evidence is available on record in regard to above aspect, he also could not refer to any such evidence except of saying that one of the landlords has stated in the affidavit that most of business concern are running in losses. He, however, admits that in order to prove alleged losses, no evidence, documentary or otherwise, was placed on record though petitioner tenants have specifically pleaded that landlords are incurring huge profits from various business establishment. 18. The question whether a business is running on loss or profit cannot be decided on the basis of mere affidavits since this is a fact which must be proved by primary evidence like statement of accounts, income tax returns etc., but it appears that no such evidence was placed before the Court below and Appellate Court, still, held that income of respondent-landlords is much below to their requirement is based on no evidence at all. 19. When a release application is instituted on the ground that tenanted accommodation is required to be released by the landlord in order to augment his income it is incumbent upon him to prove his existing income from the business he is currently running as well as other sources and also to demonstrate that the same is not sufficient to meet the need of his family and/or in case he wants to expand the business etc. to demonstrate the same by cogent evidence. to demonstrate the same by cogent evidence. In Ram Bharose and others v. Nanak Ram and others, 1982 ARC 542, a single judge of this Court said, “The case was augmenting the income can be taken up by any landlord. In such a case it has to be proved that the income from existing business and other sources was not sufficient to meet the needs of the family. In the instant case it is no where alleged as to what was the income from the betel shop or from other resources and what were the expenses of the family......... The Court below has completely ignored this aspect of the case.” 20. To the same effect are the observation made by this Court in M/S Lalita Printers Stores v. IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur and others, 1981 ARC 649, wherein the Court has observed that in respect to the income etc., the accounts books constitute best evidence to show income from existing business, and, landlord must produce accounts book. Wherever the best evidence and that too which must be in possession of the landlord, if not adduced before the Courts below, it justify an adverse inference against him negativing his claim. 21. Testing the judgment of Appellate Court in the light of the above exposition of law, I find that Appellate Court though has relied on statement of landlord i.e. income is not commensurating his status but without there being any disclosure about existing income etc. in the release application or in subsequent affidavits filed by landlord and also without supporting such bare statement made by landlord by adducing cogent and best evidence. 22. In these facts and circumstances, I find it difficult to sustain impugned judgment dated 4.4.2003 passed by Appellate Court. This writ petition deserves to be allowed and remanded to the Appellate Court to consider the matter afresh. 23. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned appellate judgment dated 4.4.2003 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Court with a direction to decide appeal afresh, expeditiously, and in any case within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. ——————