JUDGMENT : 1. This is a landlord's writ petition, arising out of proceedings for release under Section 21(1)(a) of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (for short, 'the Act'). 2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are these : Natthoomal son of Daulatram instituted proceedings against Giriraj Dharan son of Surajbhan for release under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, with the allegations that he is the owner and landlord of a shop, bearing Municipal Premises No. 127/82-A, Kachchi Sarak, Shahganj Darwaza, District Mathura. Giriraj Dharan is a tenant in the said shop at the rate of Rs.70/-per month, excluding taxes. Giriraj Dharan has been in arrears of rent since 01.08.1999. Natthoomal, who shall hereinafter be called 'the landlord', has a shop located to the south of the shop in the tenancy occupation of Giriraj Dharan. The shop in Giriraj Dharan’s tenancy shall hereinafter be called 'the demised shop'. 3. The landlord carries on the business of a jeweller in his shop aforesaid, dealing in silver jewellery. Along with the landlord, one of his sons, Rupesh Kumar also does business in the same shop as the landlord. The landlord's elder son, Pankaj and the one younger to him, Rupesh Kumar are married. Pankaj has been blessed with two children, but has no gainful occupation. The family's peace for the landlord has been a casualty on account of disputes between the womenfolk, all of which has made it difficult for Pankaj to carry on business in the same shop as the landlord. The landlord has asserted that the shop where he does business is not big enough to take care of the requirements of the landlord and his two sons, all at once. The landlord's son Pankaj has good experience of a jeweller's business in silver ornaments and he can carry on this business. The landlord has the necessary capital to set up his son Pankaj in independent business. The landlord has another shop, bearing No. 127/ 82-C, wherein there is an old tenant, Mohan Lal in occupation. Apart from these three shops, the landlord does not have any other, where he may set up his son in independent business. The landlord has the necessary capital to set up his son Pankaj in independent business. The landlord has another shop, bearing No. 127/ 82-C, wherein there is an old tenant, Mohan Lal in occupation. Apart from these three shops, the landlord does not have any other, where he may set up his son in independent business. It is pleaded by the landlord that he requires the demised shop to be released on account of the bona fide need that he has for the said shop in order to establish his son Pankaj in independent business. 4. Apart from Pankaj, the landlord has two other sons, Rupesh and Ghanshyam. Ghanshyam is not married so far. He has discontinued his studies and is otherwise competent to establish his own business. Giriraj Dharan, the tenant in the demised shop, has another tenanted shop, situate at Bairagpura, Mathura. Giriraj Dharan primarily carries on his business in the shop at Bairagpura. In addition, Giriraj Dharan has in his ancestral home, which is located close-by to the demised shop, three vacant shops of his own. In the event the demised shop is released, the tenant would not suffer greater hardship compared to what the landlord would, if the demised shop were refused to be released. It is also averred by the landlord that he conveyed his bona fide need to Giriraj Dharan, asking him to vacate the shop, but he declined. Compelled by his refusal, the landlord instituted proceedings for release as aforesaid through the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act on 04.01.2002 before the Prescribed Authority. The release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 3 of 2002 on the file of the Prescribed Authority. 5. Giriraj Dharan put in a written statement, contesting the landlord's case for release. It was pleaded by him that the landlord and all his sons carry on business in silver in the shop located to the south of the demised shop. Their business is of trading in silver. It has been asserted by Giriraj Dharan that no cause of action has arisen to the landlord to seek release of the demised shop. He has no need for the same and has sufficient property. He has a big shop, where the landlord and his sons do business in silver ornaments. The landlord's sons make these ornaments and supply them– a kind of business, called Desawari. He has no need for the same and has sufficient property. He has a big shop, where the landlord and his sons do business in silver ornaments. The landlord's sons make these ornaments and supply them– a kind of business, called Desawari. The nature of their business is not retail. They supply their wares to different places. The landlord and his sons are income tax payers. They are rich men. The landlord's son has a Saari Printing Works, located at Saraswati Kund, Mathura. The demised shop is unfit for the purpose of manufacturing business in Saaris that the landlord's son undertakes. It is asserted that the landlord's need set up is mala fide. The landlord has come up with the application for release, because he demanded enhanced rent at the rate of Rs.300/-per month, which the tenant Giriraj Dharan refused. It is on that account that the landlord has instituted the present proceedings for release, without any bona fide need, on wrong facts and nonexistent grounds. It is also averred that the landlord and his sons buy wares from Giriraj Dharan on credit, leading to a substantial sum of money falling due, which the landlord owes to Giriraj Dharan. The latter asked the landlord to adjust his outstandings against the rent due, but the landlord wants to increase the rent. Giriraj Dharan carries on in the demised shop his tea shop, where he sells, besides tea, biscuits, snacks, cigarettes etc., in order to earn his livelihood. It was averred that in case he is evicted from the demised shop in consequence of the release order, he would be ruined and his family starve to death. It was also pleaded that in the vicinity, there is no such shop which Giriraj Dharan could take on rent. It was averred further that the tenant had secured on rent a godown in the name of his son from Thakur Dauji Maharaj, where he stores his stock. The said premises are not a shop. Giriraj Dharan's ancestral house has been partitioned long back and no shop has fallen to his share. The landlord and his sons are into the business of manufacturing, where they have 8-10 servants. The landlord and his sons do not have the need to retail anything. 6. The said premises are not a shop. Giriraj Dharan's ancestral house has been partitioned long back and no shop has fallen to his share. The landlord and his sons are into the business of manufacturing, where they have 8-10 servants. The landlord and his sons do not have the need to retail anything. 6. It was also averred in the written statement that Giriraj Dharan has been served with a notice dated 19.11.2002 by registered post by the landlord's brother, Mahesh Chandra, informing Giriraj Dharan that Mahesh Chandra was the owner of the rear part of the demised shop, which had fallen to his share in some partition. The said notice had been replied to by Giriraj Dharan through his Counsel. It was averred that Mahesh Chandra has held out to be a co-landlord of the demised shop, but the landlord has not impleaded him as a party. For the said reason, the landlord's application for release was not properly framed and not maintainable. 7. Pending the release application, an application for impleadment was filed by Govind Saran Mittal, Giriraj Dharan's brother on 30.08.2005. He alleged that he too was a tenant in the demised shop. The landlord objected to the impleadment, saying that it was motivated by dilatory tactics. The application was, however, allowed by the Prescribed Authority, in consequence whereof Govind Saran Mittal came to be impleaded as opposite party no.2 to the release application. 8. Govind Saran Mittal filed his separate written statement. It is Mittal's case that the landlord had no cause of action against him. The landlord, in collusion with Giriraj Dharan, has brought these release proceedings, which are collusive and intended to evict Mittal. It is pleaded that Giriraj Dharan is a brother-in-law of the landlord’s and the two have conspired to file a compromise in Court behind Mittal's back. It is Mittal's case that the demised shop is a very old tenancy. Long ago, the owner and the landlord of the demised shop was Smt. Dulari wife of Manohar Lal and Mittal's father and that of Giriraj Dharan (the two being brothers) was the tenant. Prior to their father, their grandfather was the tenant. The family have been in successive tenancy occupation of the demised shop since before the year 1957. After Smt. Dulari, Shrinath Dass Gayasiram became the owner and landlord of the demised shop. Prior to their father, their grandfather was the tenant. The family have been in successive tenancy occupation of the demised shop since before the year 1957. After Smt. Dulari, Shrinath Dass Gayasiram became the owner and landlord of the demised shop. After Giriraj Dharan and Mittal's grandfather passed away, their father inherited the tenancy and became the sole tenant of the demised shop. Shrinath Dass Gayasiram executed a sale deed of the demised shop in favour of Sri Daulat Ram, the landlord's father and after Daulat Ram, the landlord inherited the demised shop. The tenancy in the demised shop is one antedating the year 1957 and continuing since the time of Giriraj Dharan and Mittal's grandfather. Giriraj Dharan and Govind Saran Mittal shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the tenants', unless the context requires an individual reference. 9. The tenants' father passed away on 02.10.1976 and upon his demise, all his heirs have become tenants. The tenants' father, Surajbhan also had two other sons, Harish Chandra and Keshav Deo, who are living away for some time. For the present, the demised shop is in occupation of Giriraj Dharan and Mittal, both of whom are carrying on their respective business in the said shop separately. The demised shop has two doors/ outlets and, therefore, the southern outlet is used by Mittal for his shop selling food-grains, whereas the northern door outlet is used by his brother, Giriraj Dharan for his business of tea vending etc. The demised shop has an electricity connection and a meter installed since the time of the tenants' father, in the name of their other brother, Harish Chandra. It is pleaded that the landlord has no need for the demised shop. He has substantial properties. The landlord has a big shop, where he does his business. The other shop, which is said to be in the tenancy occupation of Mohan Lal, is a matter of mere show, in order to harass the tenants. The shop, which is said to be in Mohan Lal's tenancy occupation, was earlier in the tenancy occupation of one Mool Chand Khandelwal. The said shop was vacated and after Mool Chand Khandelwal moved out, Mohan Lal was shown to be a sham tenant there. Mohan Lal himself has substantial property and does not need the shop that is said to be in his occupation. The landlord is an income tax payer. The said shop was vacated and after Mool Chand Khandelwal moved out, Mohan Lal was shown to be a sham tenant there. Mohan Lal himself has substantial property and does not need the shop that is said to be in his occupation. The landlord is an income tax payer. All his sons and daughters-in-law are income tax payers. They are a rich family. The landlord has one Saari Printing Works at Saraswati Kund, Mathura. The landlord's son Pankaj is engaged in manufacturing and supplying boxes for sweets to Brijwasi Mithaiwale on a large scale. The landlord and all his sons have flourishing business, which yields them good profit. The landlord and his sons have acquired properties, utilizing their wealth. 10. It has been emphasized that Pankaj has purchased a house (Kothi) in the name of his wife, Smt. Kavita, situate at Guru Kripa Masani Road, Mathura. That house is worth Rs.50 lakhs. There was house-warming for the said property on 20.07.2007. The landlord pending the proceedings has purchased another shop at Guru Kripa, Masani Road, Mathura. It is pleaded by Mittal that the tenants are in occupation of the demised shop for the past more than 50 years, that is to say, since the time of their grandfather and have acquired goodwill in business. Mittal has also said that he has no alternate source of livelihood and in event of release, would suffer greater hardship than the landlord in case of refusal. 11. In the replication filed on behalf of the landlord, it is said that the Act applies and Giriraj Dharan is a tenant prior to enforcement of the Act. Giriraj Dharan has set up his brother in the present proceedings in order to delay the course of law. Both the brothers have a common cause. The landlord has denied the factum of his son Pankaj purchasing a house in his wife's name at Masani Road, or the fact of acquisition of a shop pending proceedings. The fact that the landlord’s son has a Saari Printing Works has also been denied, as also the fact that his son had, had an income tax raid. It is pleaded in their replica that Mittal has wrongly claimed that his relations with his sons are estranged. To the contrary, Mittal stays with his sons and has his own flour mill (Aata Chakki). It is pleaded in their replica that Mittal has wrongly claimed that his relations with his sons are estranged. To the contrary, Mittal stays with his sons and has his own flour mill (Aata Chakki). He operates that flour mill along with his elder son, whereas his younger son does another business. The landlord has filed his evidence on affidavit, which comprises the affidavits of Ashok Kumar Sharma, Mukesh, Tulsiram, Girish Chandra and Dau Dayal, besides documentary evidence, that includes a sale deed, copies of municipal assessments and photographs. The tenant has given affidavits of Dau Dayal, Tulsiram, Girish Chandra and Giriraj Dharan. Giriraj Dharan has filed four affidavits in all. Mittal has filed affidavits of a number of witnesses, like those of Rambabu Sharma, Hiralal, Neeraj, Dileep, Bhagwandas and Shiv Kumar. Documentary evidence too has been adduced on behalf of the tenants, details of which are listed in the judgments of the Courts below. No useful purpose would be served by recapitulating the list, except what is relevant. The relevant evidence shall be referred to during the course of this judgment. 12. The Prescribed Authority framed two issues and on the basis of it, determined the application for release. These read (translated into English from Hindi): (1) Whether the applicant has a bona fide need for the shop in dispute for his son Pankaj's business? (2) Whether in case of the demised shop not being released, the applicant will suffer greater hardship than what the opposite party would face, if the property is released? 13. The Prescribed Authority has looked carefully into the evidence of parties, including the documents and affidavits. The Prescribed Authority has disbelieved a few of the witnesses, like Dau Dayal, Tulsiram and Girish Chandra, who have given contradictory affidavits about the business and bona fide need of parties. The Trial Court has found that the landlord has, according to the municipal assessment, a house and three shops in his ownership. One of these shops is the demised shop. In one of the shops, Mohan Lal is shown as the tenant, whereas the third is in the landlord's occupation. The Trial Court has found that the landlord has, according to the municipal assessment, a house and three shops in his ownership. One of these shops is the demised shop. In one of the shops, Mohan Lal is shown as the tenant, whereas the third is in the landlord's occupation. The Trial Court has remarked that the contention of Mittal that Mohan Lal's shop has not been allotted in his favour, which the landlord can get vacated, is not tenable, inasmuch as the issue in the present proceedings is not about the shop in Mohan Lal's tenancy, but the demised shop. The landlord has moved the present release application, relating to the demised shop, wherein Giriraj Dharan is the tenant. It is up to the landlord to decide which shop he wants to be released for the satisfaction of his bona fide need. The Prescribed Authority has remarked that the release of the demised shop is sought for the purpose of settling the landlord's son, Pankaj in independent business. It has been held that the fact is not in dispute that in the past, Pankaj would do business along with his father in the same shop. The landlord has funds to set up his son in independent business. The Trial Court has opined that the landlord has a right to set up any adult member of his family in independent business, which qualifies as bona fide need. The case about Pankaj being engaged in the business of Saari Printing and manufacture of sweets packaging boxes has not been accepted by the Prescribed Authority, in the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the factum of those enterprises being undertaken by Pankaj. The Prescribed Authority has, accordingly, found on the issue of bona fide need for the landlord. 14. On the other issue of comparative hardship, the Prescribed Authority has also carefully looked into the evidence and opined that by merely moving applications for allotment, it cannot be said that the tenant has made efforts to secure alternative accommodation pending proceedings. That is one of the limbs of the findings, on the basis of which the Prescribed Authority has held on the question of comparative hardship in the landlord's favour. The Prescribed Authority has remarked that bona fide need cannot be presumed, but once that is established, the difficulty faced by the tenant alone cannot defeat the landlord's bona fide need. That is one of the limbs of the findings, on the basis of which the Prescribed Authority has held on the question of comparative hardship in the landlord's favour. The Prescribed Authority has remarked that bona fide need cannot be presumed, but once that is established, the difficulty faced by the tenant alone cannot defeat the landlord's bona fide need. It has been held that on the basis of evidence on record, it is apparent that the tenants have purchased properties pending proceedings and concluded that on an overall assessment of evidence, comparative hardship ought to be answered in favour of the landlord and against the tenants. 15. In conclusion, the Prescribed Authority allowed the release application and directed the tenants' eviction within a period of one month, with directions to the landlord to pay the tenants two years' rent towards compensation. The release application as aforesaid, was allowed by the Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 19.03.2008. 16. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority, Mittal alone appealed to the District Judge, Mathura under Sectioin 22 of the Act. The appeal came to be registered on the file of the District Judge as P.A. Appeal No. 10 of 2008. The Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Mathura, before whom the appeal came up for hearing, allowed it vide judgment and order dated 14.08.2008, set aside the Prescribed Authority's judgment, reversed it and dismissed the landlord's release application. The judgment and order dated 14.08.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Mathura shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the impugned order'. 17. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the landlord has instituted the present writ petition. 18. Notice pending admission was issued on 07.11.2008 and over the course of years that the petition has remained pending, parties have exchanged affidavits. A counter affidavit has been filed by Giriraj Dharan also, though he never appealed the order releasing the demised shop passed by the Prescribed Authority. Mittal, who preferred the appeal, has, of course, filed a separate counter affidavit. A rejoinder affidavit each to the two counter affidavits filed on behalf of Giriraj Dharan and Mittal, who are respondent nos. 2 and 3 to the writ petition, have been filed by the landlord. Post exchange of affidavits, the petition was admitted to hearing, which proceeded forthwith. 19. Heard Mr. Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A rejoinder affidavit each to the two counter affidavits filed on behalf of Giriraj Dharan and Mittal, who are respondent nos. 2 and 3 to the writ petition, have been filed by the landlord. Post exchange of affidavits, the petition was admitted to hearing, which proceeded forthwith. 19. Heard Mr. Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Neeraj Srivastava, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Satish Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rahul Sahai, learned Counsel for respondent no. 3. Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2, but says that he has no instructions. 20. The Appellate Court, in reversing the findings of the Prescribed Authority, has largely taken into consideration irrelevant evidence. The learned Judge has opined that for the purpose of determining the landlord's case of bona fide need, it has to be determined whether his son, Pankaj has some independent business, or as the landlord says, the son does business with the landlord together, leading to bickerings in the family. The learned Judge has then remarked that it has to be determined whether Pankaj is indeed unemployed. The Appellate Court has remarked that there are on record affidavits of Bhagwandas and Shiv Kumar, that say that Pankaj is engaged in the business of manufacturing packaging boxes for sweets on a large scale and further state that Pankaj and his wife are income tax payers. The two witnesses have also said that in their presence, Pankaj and his wife have faced proceedings of survey by the Income Tax Department. The learned Judge has remarked that the landlord has rebutted the fact about Pankaj and his wife being income tax payers, as also that about the alleged proceedings against him by the Income Tax Department, but Pankaj has not filed his own affidavit, denying the fact. The Appellate Court has inferred that non-denial by Pankaj himself shows that the landlord's son did not have the courage to deny the fact on oath and take the risk of perjuring himself. It has been observed that the landlord denying the fact of his son being an income tax payer or accepting it, is of no consequence, unless Pankaj himself came forward with his stand. It has been held that since Pankaj has not filed his affidavit rebutting the allegations, the inference is that he is an income tax payer. It has been observed that the landlord denying the fact of his son being an income tax payer or accepting it, is of no consequence, unless Pankaj himself came forward with his stand. It has been held that since Pankaj has not filed his affidavit rebutting the allegations, the inference is that he is an income tax payer. It has further been remarked that an income tax payer is not a person of ordinary means. Such a man is either one who draws a high salary or has flourishing business. This would be the necessary inference in law, according to the Appellate Court, from the facts found, as aforesaid. 21. There is another finding recorded to the effect that the assertion on behalf of the tenants that Pankaj has purchased a shop in Hari Kunj, has also not been denied on affidavit. The inference drawn is that Pankaj has purchased a shop in Hari Kunj. The conclusion drawn is that for Pankaj, to settle down in business, the landlord has set up his bona fide need, but the landlord’s son does not need the demised shop, inasmuch as the shop that Pankaj has purchased in Hari Kunj is sufficient for his business requirements. 22. It would be apposite to consider the worth of the aforesaid findings recorded by the Appellate Court, as referred to hereinabove. The fact whether Pankaj is an income tax payer or not, is no business of the Appellate Court to investigate. Assuming that Pankaj is an income tax payer, the landlord has a right to set up an independent business for his son or augment his business, independent from his own. It is not the tenants' right to question the landlord's bona fide need claimed for his son’s independent business by relying on the son's income tax returns or those of his wife. Normally, a person, who is engaged in business like the tenants, say of trade in silver together with his father, may also earn enough to become an income tax payer. The fact that a person is an income tax payer is no index to infer that he has an independent business of his own. Moreover, the remarks of the Appellate Court that an income tax payer is not an ordinary parson, but a businessman with a big turnover or a flourishing trade, are all misplaced. 23. The fact that a person is an income tax payer is no index to infer that he has an independent business of his own. Moreover, the remarks of the Appellate Court that an income tax payer is not an ordinary parson, but a businessman with a big turnover or a flourishing trade, are all misplaced. 23. Payment of income tax is hardly a parameter to infer that the person concerned/ member of the landlord's family, for whom the business premises is claimed to be needed bona fide for independent business, already has an existing business of his own. The Appellate Court has not only taken into consideration irrelevant evidence, but conjectured much about the landlord's son being an income tax payer. There is no evidence aliunde on record to show that the landlord's son or his daughters-in-law are income tax payers. There is no document on record, like an assessment order or return, to demonstrate the fact that Pankaj is, in fact, an income tax payer. The mere fact that Pankaj has not denied the assertion about him being an income tax payer through his personal affidavit, cannot lead to the inference that he is one. There is, after all, a denial of the fact by the landlord that his son Pankaj is not an income tax payer. It is the landlord who has asked for the release of the demised shop and he is well within his rights to give evidence about the fact that his son, for whose independent business he requires the demised shop, is not an income tax payer. The landlord's evidence cannot be ignored as the Appellate Court has done. 24. Moreover, the affidavits, on the basis of which it has been inferred that the landlord's son is an income tax payer, are those of one Bhagwandas and another Shiv Kumar. It is not clear as to how these persons, apart from saying that they have witnessed some kind of income tax survey proceedings against Pankaj, would know that he is an income tax payer. There is no evidence annexed to those affidavits, like some proceedings of assessment or assessment order to establish the fact. 25. Likewise, the finding that since the assertion about Pankaj buying a shop in Hari Kunj has not been denied on affidavit, the fact stands proved, is equally flawed. There is no evidence annexed to those affidavits, like some proceedings of assessment or assessment order to establish the fact. 25. Likewise, the finding that since the assertion about Pankaj buying a shop in Hari Kunj has not been denied on affidavit, the fact stands proved, is equally flawed. There is again no evidence to show, like a sale deed, that such a shop has been purchased by Pankaj. In the absence of any independent evidence, no inference can be drawn on the basis of a mere non-traverse about a fact as positive as purchase of another shop by the landlord's son. Even if it be assumed that Pankaj has purchased some shop out of his own resources or whatever be the source, it is not for the tenants to dictate to the landlord, where and how the landlord should go about satisfying his bona fide need to settle his son in independent business. Even if the landlord has more than one shop available to him, the tenant nor the Court can say which shop the landlord should utilize to satisfy his son's business requirements. There is no denying the fact that he is a matured man with a family and there is no evidence aliunde on record to show that Pankaj owns a business of his own, except allegations on affidavits. About the freedom of the landlord to earn his livelihood for maintaining himself and his family according to his choice, it was held by this Court in Vijay Kumar Gupta & another v. Smt. Sumitra Devi & others 2014 (1) ARC 371 : 7. The above referred authorities though, were in the context of residential accommodation, but the principle that the landlord is the master of arranging his own affairs applies not only in respect to his residential accommodation but also the manner and method etc. of earning his livelihood for maintaining himself and family. 8. In Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinary & Co. (2000) 1 SCC 679 , the Court said that landlord is best judge of his requirement for his residential or business purpose and he has complete freedom in the matter. 26. The other finding, on the basis of which the Appellate Court has reversed the order of the Prescribed Authority, is about the existence of another shop available to the landlord, wherein there is no lawful occupant. 27. 26. The other finding, on the basis of which the Appellate Court has reversed the order of the Prescribed Authority, is about the existence of another shop available to the landlord, wherein there is no lawful occupant. 27. The next submission that the Appellate Court has considered to find against the landlord on the question of bona fide need is based on the tenants' contention that there are two other shops, apart from the demised shop, bearing Shop Nos. 127/82B and 127/82C that are in the landlord's possession. In addition, the Appellate Court has also noticed the tenants' assertion that there were two other shops on the same premises that bore old Nos. 1798D and 1798E, which fell to the landlord's share. The Appellate Court, after noticing the above contentions urged on behalf of the tenants, has remarked that these facts are admitted to parties. In our opinion, the remark last mentioned is an error apparent. There is no admission brought to this Court's notice that Shop Nos. 127/82B and 127/82C are in the landlord's possession. This would also be apparent from the next remark by the Appellate Court, where it is said that the shop, that is said to be in Mohan Lal's tenancy, had for its original tenant, one Mool Chand, from whom it was got vacated and delivered possession of to Mohan Lal. The shop bearing No. 127/82C is, therefore, in the occupation of Mohan Lal as a tenant, or as the Appellate Court later on says, as an illegal occupant. It cannot be said to be ‘admittedly’ in the landlord's possession. It is particularly so because the landlord says that Mohan Lal is a tenant in Shop No. 127/82C, notwithstanding the finding of the Appellate Court that Mohan Lal is an unlawful occupant in the shop under reference. It cannot be said to be a fact admitted to parties that Shop No. 128/82C is in the landlord's possession. 28. The Appellate Court has then looked into the successive quinquennial assessment of house tax record to determine about the existing tenants in the two other shops, bearing Nos. 127/82B and 127/82C. The tenancy in Shop No. 127/82C, where Mohan Lal is claimed by the landlord to be a tenant, has been particularly examined. 28. The Appellate Court has then looked into the successive quinquennial assessment of house tax record to determine about the existing tenants in the two other shops, bearing Nos. 127/82B and 127/82C. The tenancy in Shop No. 127/82C, where Mohan Lal is claimed by the landlord to be a tenant, has been particularly examined. The Appellate Court has looked into the house tax assessment record for the years 1970 to 1987, bearing Paper No. 67-Ga, which shows the profile of tenants in the demised shops and the other shops that are the subject matter of contention to judge the issue of bona fide need. About the said assessment, the Appellate Court has recorded a finding that in one of the shops, Surajbhan is shown to be a tenant and in the second, Mool Chand. In the third, Pitambar Das and in the fourth, Kishori Lal are recorded as tenants. Mohan Lal is not recorded as a tenant in any of the four shops mentioned in the assessment, all of which are housed in the same premises as the demised shop. It is then remarked by the Appellate Court that Mohan Lal is found recorded in Paper No. 99-Ga, which is a copy of the house tax assessment from the year 1987 to 1993. Here, Mohan Lal has been shown recorded as a tenant in Shop No. 1798/C. There is a further comment about Paper No. 99-Ga/3 to the effect that in this assessment, Mool Chand is not recorded as a tenant. From these records of assessment, the Appellate Court has drawn the conclusion that Shop No. 127/82C was in the tenancy occupation of Mool Chand up to the year 1987, and after that, it was handed over to Mohan Lal. The Appellate Court, with reference to the provisions of the Act, has held that there can be no valid tenancy without an allotment order, except where it has been continuing since prior to July, 1976. Since Mohan Lal has admittedly come in the year 1987, without an order of allotment, he is not a tenant, but an unauthorized occupant. The shop must, therefore, be deemed to be vacant. There is a further finding that in Paper No. 67-Ga-2, the municipal assessment records for the years 1972 to 1987, neither Mohan Lal nor Gopal Das are shown recorded as tenants. Both these men have been recorded after 1987. The shop must, therefore, be deemed to be vacant. There is a further finding that in Paper No. 67-Ga-2, the municipal assessment records for the years 1972 to 1987, neither Mohan Lal nor Gopal Das are shown recorded as tenants. Both these men have been recorded after 1987. Since the two are in possession of the two shops, according to the Appellate Court, without an allotment order, with the tenancy not traceable to a date prior to July, 1976, the shops in their possession must be held to be in unauthorized occupation and, therefore, deemed vacant. 29. The Appellate Court has gone on to remark that the authority of this Court in Ganga Narain Gupta vs. Sheetala Prasad, 2006 (65) ALR 587, which says that the landlord can ask anyone of his various tenants to vacate one or the other of the shops in tenancy occupation in order to satisfy his bona fide need, and cannot be compelled to ask a particular tenant to vacate, would not apply to the facts here. The reason assigned is that the other person in occupation of another shop or premises of the landlord must be a lawful tenant and not an unauthorized occupant. This finding is followed by a reversion to the fact earlier found that the landlord's son Pankaj and his daughters-in-law, being income tax payers, would show that they are well established in business and do not require the demised shop, much less bona fide need it. In this Court's opinion, the approach of the Appellate Court is fundamentally flawed and manifestly illegal on this limb of the reasoning too. Once for a proposition of law, it is not in dispute that the landlord can choose from amongst the various tenants, who are in occupation of different premises or shops, against whom he wants to proceed for release on the ground of bona fide need, the fact that some other shop occupied by another tenant, whom the tenant says is in unauthorized occupation, is not at all relevant. 30. The fact whether the other person in possession of another shop belonging to the landlord is an unauthorized occupant or a lawful tenant, cannot be decided in proceedings for release brought on the ground of bona fide need, under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. This can be done by moving the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, under Section 12/16 of the Act. This can be done by moving the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, under Section 12/16 of the Act. Also, in proceedings, where the question is if the person in occupation of the other shop, bearing No. 127/82C, is a tenant or an unauthorized occupant, the affected party has to be impleaded as a necessary party and heard. That inquiry cannot be made in the present proceedings that have been brought for release of the demised shop, in the occupation of the tenants. In Mohan Lal's absence, behind his back, without hearing him, in proceedings for release under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, to hold that Mohan Lal is not a tenant, but an unauthorized occupant, is a finding beyond the scope of the present proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. 31. For the purpose of these proceedings, the landlord asserts that Mohan Lal is a tenant in another shop of the landlord’s and the fact has to be accepted for Mohan Lal is in settled possession over a long period of time. The question about vacancy based on the day of commencement of Mohan Lal's tenancy cannot be inquired into in proceedings for release under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, brought inter partes between the landlord and the tenants. 32. Quite apart from these facts, the law is fairly well settled that a landlord has the right to expand his business and the tenant or the Court cannot force him to carry on in the same shop. When the case is one of the landlord's needing additional accommodation for his sons' business requirement, which would include ex hypothesi, the landlord's need to provide for his sons' expansion of business, the landlord cannot be denied the right to seek release of additional accommodation, where he has a sitting tenant, whom he wants to evict for the purpose. The fundamental principle about the landlord's right to expand his business being a ground to support a case of bona fide need under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, has been succinctly laid down by esteemed Brother Manoj Kumar Gupta in Shambhu Nath v. Third Additional District Judge and others, 2014 (1) ARC 372 in the following words: 11………….. A landlord has got a right to expand his business and in case he requires additional space for it, the need cannot be said to be malafide. A landlord has got a right to expand his business and in case he requires additional space for it, the need cannot be said to be malafide. The tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlords as to how he should satisfy his need. The court cannot act as a rationing authority and force the landlord not to expand his business or carry on in the same shop. In the above context, it is worthwhile to quote the following lines from the judgement of the Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd, (1998) 8 SCC 119 :- “.........When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlords as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord, it is quite necessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.” 33. This Court is of opinion that the landlord's right to expand his business would include the right to ensure expansion of business for a family member, for whose necessity he is entitled otherwise to seek release of a tenanted premises owned by him. The right of the landlord to seek release under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act for the expansion of business, cannot be confined to the landlord's own need. It applies equally to that of the members of his family, for whom he can otherwise seek release. Any other construction on the terms of Section 21(1)(a) of the Act would bog down the statute. 34. Broadly speaking, there are three shops owned by the landlord, in two of which there are tenants in occupation. In one shop, the landlord is carrying on business along with his son Rupesh Kumar. Pankaj, the son for whom he seeks release of the demised shop, is finding it difficult to carry on business in the same shop. 34. Broadly speaking, there are three shops owned by the landlord, in two of which there are tenants in occupation. In one shop, the landlord is carrying on business along with his son Rupesh Kumar. Pankaj, the son for whom he seeks release of the demised shop, is finding it difficult to carry on business in the same shop. There is no evidence to show that Pankaj indeed has another shop of his own. The mere fact that he is an income tax payer does not show that he is in occupation of premises suitable for his business. Even if he has, the landlord has a right to seek release of additional accommodation for the need of expansion or better satisfaction of the business requirements of his son. It is no business of the tenant or the Court to tell the landlord, where and how the landlord's son Pankaj should house and carry on his business. It is also not within the province of either of them to say that whatever accommodation the landlord's son Pankaj is utilizing to do business, is good enough for his needs, because he is an income tax payer. Findings to this effect and the related findings are not only manifestly illegal, but also based on irrelevant considerations. In the Court's opinion, the findings of the Prescribed Authority on the question of bona fide need are well reasoned and must be affirmed, whereas those of the Appellate Court held not tenable at all. 35. So far as the question of comparative hardship is concerned, the Appellate Court has not expressed any opinion, because it has been held, and rightly so, that once bona fide need has not been found by that Court, no opinion is required to be entered on the question of comparative hardship. Since this Court has disagreed with the conclusions of the Appellate Court on the issue of comparative hardship, and affirmed those of the Prescribed Authority, the issue of comparative hardship becomes relevant. The Prescribed Authority, in returning its opinion on the question of comparative hardship, has taken note of the fact that so far as Giriraj Dharan is concerned, he owns a tea shop, selling tea, biscuits, snacks, cigarettes etc., but has a tenanted premises at Bairagpura, rented from Thakur Dauji Maharaj, a temple trust. In those premises, he runs a shop providing tents for marriages, crockery etc. on rent. In those premises, he runs a shop providing tents for marriages, crockery etc. on rent. Evidence regarding the aforesaid business of the tenant, Giriraj Dharan has been considered by the Prescribed Authority, which includes documentary evidence. One of these evidence, is about the provision of crockery on rent to the landlord regarding a Namkaran Ceremony of the landlord's grandchild. The Prescribed Authority has also taken note of the tenant's ancestral property at Mohalla Halanganj, where there is a shop, out of the three in the tenant's possession. There is also a document noticed by the Prescribed Authority, which is a sale deed showing Giriraj Dharan's son Rishi Mohan, pending suit, to have purchased property in Halanganj. There is another municipal assessment record showing that the tenant has still another property at Bairagpura in the name of his wife, Pushpa Devi. The municipal assessment is Paper No. 50-Ga/2. From all these facts, the Prescribed Authority has concluded that the tenant, Giriraj Dharan is a well-off man, who has purchased properties in the names of his wife and sons. Pending proceedings, he has also purchased a property in his son's name. In the circumstances, he would not face any hardship in the event the demised shop were released. It has also been opined that ‘comparative hardship’ is not evenly balanced and lies in favour of the landlord. 36. So far as the other tenant Mittal is concerned, who has got himself impleaded in the release proceedings, it has been urged that the landlord must prove his bona fide need and that if the landlord's bona fide need is not established, the issue of comparative hardship ought not to be examined. The Prescribed Authority opined that here, the landlord has well established his bona fide need and, therefore, the issue of comparative hardship has also been examined. 37. To these findings, this Court must add that so far as Mittal is concerned, he has virtually thrust himself through impleadment as a tenant, taking advantage of the fact that Giriraj Dharan and his father was a tenant in the demised shop. There is, however, hardly any evidence to show that, in fact, Mittal is carrying on business in the demised shop. The release application, therefore, moved against Giriraj Dharan alone could have been granted. Surprisingly, Giriraj Dharan has not appealed the judgment of the Prescribed Authority, releasing the demised shop. There is, however, hardly any evidence to show that, in fact, Mittal is carrying on business in the demised shop. The release application, therefore, moved against Giriraj Dharan alone could have been granted. Surprisingly, Giriraj Dharan has not appealed the judgment of the Prescribed Authority, releasing the demised shop. It is Mittal alone who has appealed to the District Judge and got the judgment of the Prescribed reversed. This feature of the case further tips the scale of comparative hardship against the tenant, where Mittal does not seem to have much of recorded presence as a tenant after his father. 38. Though not of much relevance under the Act, there is one fact that cannot be ignored, while judging equities between parties, that this Court must ensure in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The tenant is occupying the demised shop at a measly rent of Rs.70/-per month. The demised shop has been held by virtue of protection under the Rent Control Laws for so long that it is of no use to the landlord at all. 39. In the clear opinion of this Court, the judgment passed by the Appellate Court is manifestly illegal, being based on irrelevant considerations and the result of a perverse approach. Bearing in mind the clear requirements of the law, on the facts obtaining and the equities arising between parties in this case, the judgment of the Appellate Court deserves to be quashed and that of the Prescribed Authority restored. 40. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 14.08.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Mathura in P.A. Appeal No. 10 of 2008 is hereby quashed. The judgment of the Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 3 of 2002 is restored. The tenants are granted three months' time to vacate the demised shop, provided they furnish an undertaking on affidavit before the Prescribed Authority, Mathura within 15 days of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, stipulating that they will handover vacant and peaceful possession of the demised shop to the landlord on or before 10.01.2023. In case of default in either furnishing the requisite undertaking or delivering possession by the date fixed, the release order shall be carried into execution forthwith.