Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Ram Narayan, husband of petitioner No. 1 Smt. Kesar Devi was the tenant in the shop in House No. 50/267, Halsi Road, Kanpur in which he carried on the business of sale of white-washing materials etc. Respondent No. 2 Smt. Phool Kunwar and respondent No. 3 Shyama Charan filed release application No. 69 of 1987 against the tenant Ram Narayan under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 on the ground that respondent No. 3 Shyama Charan, landlord is a heart patient and has been medically advised by the doctors to avoid climbing up the stairs.

3. Sri Ram Narayan filed objection to the application No. 69/87 on 29.8.1988 stating that he was the tenant of the previous landlord Rajab Baksh in the disputed shop, through allotment dated 17.7.1958 which is not a residential accommodation.

4. A commission was issued by the Prescribed Authority on the application of the father of the petitioner No. 1 Sri Ram Narayan which submitted its report dated 31.3.1998.

5. The Prescribed Authority by the judgment and order dated 12.8.1993 allowed the release application of the landlords.

6. The petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 against the aforesaid order dated 12.8.1993 which was registered as R.A. No. 129 of 1993, on the ground that the Prescribed Authority has not considered the oral and documentary evidence available on record, as such the findings of the Prescribed Authority are perverse.

7. The appellants also filed Sales Tax Form No. 1 prepared under Rule 50 of the Sales Tax Rules, as well as Challans for the years 1990 onwards to establish that this accommodation in dispute was a shop and not a residential accommodation. The aforesaid appeal was allowed by the IV Additional District Judge, Kanpur by order dated 21.4.1994 who remanded the matter back to the Prescribed Authority after framing the following 4 questions for re-decision: -

(1) Whether between Shyama Charan, applicant No. 2 in Release Application and respondent No. 3 in the Writ Petition, and the father of petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 there was relationship of landlord and tenant?

(2) Whether the landlord has bona fide need of the disputed accommodation?

(3) Whether the objection of the tenant under Section 21 (1) (a) of Act No. XIII of 1972 is not valid and whether House-No. 50/256, Halsi Road is residential or non-residential?

(4) Whether comparative hardships of the landlord are more than the tenant?

In pursuance of the remand order dated 21.4.1994 the matter again came up before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority on remand again allowed the Release Application on 31.3.1998 on the ground of comparative hardships in favour of respondent No. 3. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner Smt. Kesar Devi, Durga Prasad, Naresh Chandra, Raju Kumar and Rubi preferred Rent Appeals No. 78 and 80 of 1998. Another Rent Appeal was preferred by Jagdish Prasad and Ramesh Chandra.

8. Alter remand of the case, Smt. Phool Kunwar and Ram Narayan died in the year 1996 and their heirs respondent Nos. 3 to 10 and all the seven petitioners have been substituted. An application under Section 34 read with Rule 22 (d) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was also filed for formal amendment in the written statement appended as Annexure-10 to the writ petition. The appellants of Appeal No. 78 of 1998 also filed an application to the effect that they have got possession of two rooms from Ram Kumar during the pendency of the appeal in which the son of respondent No. 3 is doing his business in the name and style of Tirupati Sanitary Stores.

9. The aforesaid appeals were thereafter dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar vide common judgment and order dated 19.4.2003 allegedly without giving any opportunity to the petitioners for oral arguments.

10. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitio