R.L. Gulati, J.
1. The petitioner is a displaced person from Pakistan and since 1948 has been occupying shop No. 169/168 in Mohalla Shekh Zadam, town Kandhla, district Muzaffarnagar, of which the opposite party No. 3, Smt. Shakooran, is the owner. He has been practising as a Hakim. The landlady moved an application under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, for permission to file a suit against him on the ground that on account of his old age he was no longer fit to carry on the profession of a Hakim and as such he did not need the shop in question, whereas she wanted the accommodation for her husband to enable him to open a tailoring shop there. The petitioner filed his objection saying that he was still fit to carry on his profession with the help of his son and filed a medical certificate to support his claim. The petitioner's objection was not accepted and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allowed the application. The petitioner went up in revision before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. The Commissioner accepted the revision application and remanded the case to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for a fresh decision with a direction that the need of the petitioner and of the landlady should be compared and thereafter a decision should be taken. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer made a local inspection and found that the petitioner was lying on bed. On his order the petitioner was examined by the Civil Surgeon who gave a report that the petitioner was almost blind as one of his eyes had become useless and he could not see beyond a distance of 2 or 3 feet with the help of the other eye. On this report the Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that the petitioner no longer needed the shop and he once again granted the permission to the landlady to file a suit for his ejectment. The petitioner once again went up in revision before the Commissioner. While the revision was pending, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 came into force and the revision was transferred as an appeal to the District Judge, Muzaffarnagar. The learned District Judge by his order dated 12th October, 1972 has dismissed the appeal. He has also proceeded on the footing that the petitioner was too old and infirm to carry on his profession. The petitioner is aggrieved and has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. In my opinion, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as also the learned District Judge have misdirected themselves in law. A citizen has a fundamental right to engage himself in a business or profession for as long as he likes. It is not open to a third person, including an authority under the Rent Control Act to declare a person unfit to carry on his profession or business and to force him to vacate the premises, from which he carries on his business or profession. Due to old age, infirmity or similar other causes the extent of a person's business or profession may shrink considerably but that is no ground upon which permission can be granted to the landlord to evict him. To concede such a power to the Rent Control Authorities would lead to dangerous and disastrous consequences. Now in the instant case the petitioner had repeatedly asserted that he was carrying on his profession with the help of his son. He also asserted that the partial loss of eye sight w,as no handicap for him because he diagnoses his patients by feeling their pulse. It is a matter of common knowledge that a profession like HIKMAT is passed on from father to son. It would indeed be highly unjust and cruel to uproot an old man on the ground that he had ceased to be capable of doing his work efficiently or that the extent of his work had fallen. As a matter of fact, the old age and infirmity of the petitioner was a factor in his favour in the matter of comparison of his need with the need of the landlady. A comparatively younger person can set up his business or profession elsewhere but an old man like the petitioner may not find it possible to do so. The fact that the petitioner is anxious to retain possession of the accommodation in dispute clearly shows that he needs it still otherwise he would not be paying rent for it. It is nobody's case that the petitioner had sub-let the shop or was putting it to unauthorised use in any other manner. Whatever may be the extent of his practice, he still wants to continue in the profession and, in my opinion, no one is entitled to stop him from doing so. Of course, if a landlord applies for the eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs the accommodation for his personal use, the tenant can be evicted if on a fair comparison of their needs the need of the landlord is found to be greater. But, since in the instant case there has been no fair comparison, the impugned orders cannot be sustained.
3. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 14th June, 1972 and the order of the District Judge dated 12th October, 1972 are quashed. The petitioner is entitled to the costs.