ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant, who is the landlord, is questioning the judgment dated 1.9.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition-A No. 20137 of 2010 wherein the High Court affirmed the judgment dated 16.01.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozabad in P.A. Appeal No. 65 of 2008 which reversed the order passed by the Rent Controller.

3. The parties are referred to as per the rank before the rent controller. The petitioner landlord filed a petition under Section 21 (1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 on the ground of bona fide need and comparative hardship which came to be allowed and said order dated 18.07.2008 passed by the Rent Controller came to be reversed by the appellate court and confirmed by the High Court. Hence, this appeal.

4. The Rent Controller had accepted the plea of bona fide need of the landlady, namely, that daughter-in-law being a qualified doctor was in need of the suit schedule premises for setting up her clinic. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the parties, the prescribed authority (Civil Judge) allowed the petition, which was reversed by the appellate authority by order dated 16.1.2010 on the ground that the daughter-in-law of the appellant is employed as Demonstrator in the Department of Biochemistry and is a resident of Dehradun where her husband is also working and there are no bonafides in the claim of the appellant. It was also held by the appellate authority that respondent is engaged in the business of sale of Rasgulla for the past 40 years and it is his only source of income and in the scale of comparative hardship, the eviction, if ordered, would cause more hardship to the tenant. The High Court confirmed the said order of the appellate authority by opining that the return of the daughter-in-law of the appellant to Ferozabad is unlikely as her husband is an Associate Professor and working at Himalaya Institute Hospital Trust, Dehradun.

5. During the course of these proceedings the appellant expired and her legal representatives have been brought on record. It is also not in dispute that Dr. Preeti Chaturvedi, who was daughter-in-law of the deceased appellant has also expired during the pendency of the present proceedings and the affidavit of her husband, namely, son of the deceased landlady dated 23.1.2025 filed in these proceedings would disclose that he is aged about 58 years and is working as Professor in Department of Physiology, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Dehradun. He has specifically pleaded in his affidavit that the shop let out to the respondent-tenant is genuinely required or needed for the purpose of starting his private medical practice and he propose to resign and start medical practice by relocating to Ferozabad. He has also deposed that he intends to start the clinic after tendering resignation by forwarding his intentment to retire with three months' notice to his employer. It is also his plea that most of the clinics are located in the Sadar Bazar area of Ferozabad, namely, in the vicinity of the suit schedule premises and as such he intends to set up his clinic in suit scheduled premises. His only daughter is studying at United States of America and as such he intends to relocate. He pleads that his father who is aged 85 years is to be taken care of and for this reason also, he intends to relocate and commence his medical practice by establishing a clinic in the suit schedule premises.

6. Learned counsel a