Landlord Seeking Shop Release Justified As Bona Fide Need to Settle Son's Independent Business: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court upheld the release of a shop in favor of a landlord seeking to settle his son’s independent business, ruling that the need was bona fide.

The petitioner challenged the order of the Prescribed Authority, which granted the release under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent, and Eviction) Act, 1972, arguing that the son, operating a business, should not have been considered in need of additional premises. The petitioner presented GST documents to assert that the son was running the business independently, questioning the legitimacy of the landlord’s claim.

Justice Ajit Kumar stated “If the son has been doing business with his father, he has every right to get settled independently in a business, and the father is absolutely justified in setting up a need for the release of the shop in question to settle his son. Need, therefore, was liable to be rendered as bona fide."

Advocate Pankaj Agarwal represents the petitioner, while Advocate Akanksha Gaur represents the respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner filed a challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, questioning both the order of the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority which affirmed the release of the shop. The petitioner produced GST receipts from 2017-2018 to support the claim that his son was running the business independently. However, the respondent's counsel pointed out that the relevant GST documents showed the cancellation of the son's registration, and a new business was registered under the father’s name.

Reasoning

The court observed that the GST receipts submitted by the petitioner, from 2017-2018, were irrelevant to the 2020 release application. "The 2018 GST receipt showed itself that the GSTIN number standing in the name of Sanskar Traders with Akash Varshney as proprietor came to be cancelled." Therefore, these documents did not establish that the son was independently operating a business. The court also noted that the business was re-registered under the father’s name in 2018. "Since September, 2018 onwards the firm stood registered in the name of Rakesh Varshney only as proprietor of the firm." Additionally, the petitioner’s claim of three shops was contradicted by a survey report showing only two. "The theory of three shops set up by petitioner was also not correct because the survey commission report sufficiently demonstrated that there were only two shops that were found during survey on the spot."

Cause Title: Hari Shankar v. Rakesh Kumar [Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4926]

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Pankaj Agarwal

Respondent: Advocate Akanksha Gaur

Click Here to Read/Download the Order