S.U.KHAN, J. - (1.)HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.)THIS is landlady's writ petition arising out of eviction/release pro ­ceedings initiated by her against tenants -respondents on the ground of bona fide need under section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The release applica ­tion was registered as P.A. Case No. 47 of 2003 on the file of Prescribed Authority/J.S.C.C Jhansi. Property in dispute is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 90 per month. Landlady pleaded that she had four sons, out of whom two were doing business of readymade garments and she required the shop in dis ­pute for settling the other two sons i.e. Sri Sanjeev Singh and Sri Surjeet Singh. Initially late Sri Kishen Chandra Lekhadhari was the tenant of the shop in dispute. After his death the respondents inherited the tenancy. Release application was allowed on 1.12.2005. Against the said judgment and order tenants filed R.C. Appeal No. 13 of 2005. A.D.J. Court No. 1 Jhansi allowed the appeal through judgment and order dated 4.10.2006, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority and remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority. Landlady has challenged the said judgment of the Appellate Court through this writ petition.
The map of the shop in dispute along with other adjoining properties of the landlady is at pages 63 -64 of the paper book, which was part of affidavit of Pawan Kumar, tenant -respondent No. 2, before the Courts below and has been annexed along with the copy of the said affidavit, which is Annexure '8' to the writ petition. The number of the shop in dispute is 172. Another shop almost of equal area is situate towards west of the shop in dispute and is numbered as 173. Initially both the shops were in the tenancy occupation of the original tenant. However, release application was earlier filed for the need of Shrimati Urmila Devi, sister of the deceased husband of the landlady and back portion numbered as 173 was released for the need of Shrimati Urmila Devi in the year 1980. In the map at page 63 it is shown that towards south and west of the property in dispute 8 or 10 shops are available to the landlady. However, in the said map itself it is shown that all the shops open in a very very narrow passage while shop No. 172 has got opening on the main road. Landlady pleaded that portions shown as shops in the said map filed by the tenant were not shops but were actually used as godowns. In any case landlady offered one of the said shops to the tenant, which was not accepted. Shrimati Urmila had also filed an affidavit in support of the case of the landlady be ­fore the Prescribed Authority. In para 5 of the said affidavit she stated that after getting the possession of the shop No. 173 she started doing the job of stitching and weaving. However, due to old age she had stopped doing that business and elder son of the landlady Shrimati Shakuntala Devi was assist ­ing her (Shrimati Urmila) in her business from shop No. 173.

(3.)PRESCRIBED Authority had held that tenants had ample commercial ac ­commodation at their disposal. However, Appellate Court held that it was not sufficient or relevant while considering the bona fide need of the landlord. Appellate Court held that merely because landlady wanted to settle all her sons in business was not sufficient to prove the bona fide need. This view is ut ­terly erroneous in law. Supreme Court in Sushila v. A.D.J. 2003 (52) ALR 707 (SC) = 2003 (9) AJC 156. and R.K. Covil v. Maqsoodan 2007 (67) ALR 774 (SC) = 2007 (53) AJC 30., has held that every adult member of the landlord's family is en ­titled to have independent separate business and no family member of the landlord can be compelled to participate in the family business. The Appellate Court while remanding the matter completely misdirected itself. Appellate Court held that it was necessary for the Prescribed Authority to decide as to whether the business of selling ready -made garments carried out by the two el ­der sons of the landlady i.e. Sri Rajeev and Ranjeet Singh was of such a scale that she required additional accommodation for the said purpose and that an ­nual turnover, sales tax, income tax documents in respect of the business of Rajeev Singh and Ranjeet Singh were not filed. The landlady had pleaded that her elder sons Rajeev Singh and Surjeet Singh were settled in business. Landlady did not seek release for expansion of business of Rajeev Singh and Ranjeet Singh. Release application was filed for settling other two sons of the landlady i.e. Sanjeev Singh and Surjeet Singh. In view of this it was wholly immaterial to ascertain the extent of business of Sri Rajeev and Ranjeet Singh.
As stated earlier, the Supreme Court in Sushila Devi and R.K. Govil (supra) has held that each and every adult member of landlord's family is entitled to have separate independent business. Shri Sanjeev Singh and Surjeet Singh can ­not be compelled to do business along with their brothers Sri Rajeev Singh and Ranjeet Singh howsoever big may be the business of Sri Rajeev and Ranjeet Singh.