Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for both the parties in the first writ petition and only the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the second writ petition as tenants respondents of the said writ petition did not appear in spite of sufficient service.

2. Both the writ petitions have been filed by same landlords against different tenants. Properties in dispute in both the writ petitions are different but adjacent to each other. The tenant in the writ petition of 1998 was Om Prakash-respondent No. 3, who died during pendency of proceedings before the Courts below and was substituted by his legal representatives, who are contesting respondents. Shop in dispute in the said writ petition is shop No. 174, which consists of four portions total frontage is 20 feet and 7 inches and depth is about 40 feet. Exactly an equal area is in possession of the tenants-respondents in the 2003 writ petition (original tenant was deceased Panna Lal), which is numbered as Shops No. 171 and 173 and both the portions are adjacent to each other. Map is given on Page No. 131 of supplementary affidavit filed in 2003 writ petition and also on page 22 of the said petition. Shops No. 171 and 173 are on the northern side and Shop No. 174 on the southern side. In both the cases, release applications filed by the landlords against the tenants were dismissed by both the Courts below. In the first writ petition, release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 55 of 1987 and was dismissed on 14.6.1989 by Prescribed Authority/Vth Additional Civil Judge, Ghaziabad. Against the said judgment and order Misc. Appeal No. 141 of 1989 was filed, which was dismissed by VIIth A.D.J., Ghaziabad on 13.2.1998. In the second writ petition, release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 09 of 1996 and was dismissed by Prescribed Authority/IIIrd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad on 24.5.2002. Against the said order, R.C. Appeal No. 96 of 2002 was filed, which was dismissed on 27.11.2003 by A.D.J./Special Judge, C.B.I., Ghaziabad.

3. Rent of each tenanted accommodation is Rs. 87.50/- per month.

4. The need set up by the landlords, who are four in number, was that landlord-applicant No. 1 was doing business from a tenanted shop in Nawyug Market along with his father and applicants No. 2 to 4 were without any business or job. It was also stated that earlier also release application was filed against Panna Lal, which had been dismissed, however due to changed circumstances, second release application was maintainable. It was also stated that applicants No. 2 and 3 proposed to start the business of manufacturing and exporting ready-made garments in shop No. 171 and 173. Shop No. 174 was required for other two landlords. Earlier release application against Panna Lal (filed in 1985) was dismissed only on the ground that landlords were doing business of Metal Traders and fabricators and Artisan export corporation and M.M. Steel.

5. The Courts below mainly rejected the release applications giving rise to the instant petitions on the ground that landlords could not prove that they had experience, qualification or financial capacity to do the proposed business. Courts below also held that two shops of 8 feet x 7 feet were available to the landlords and a shop in between the said two shops was in possession of another tenant Nanak Chand and in case landlords had applied for release of the said shop, then it would have been released. Courts below heavily placed reliance upon dismissal of earlier release application against Panna Lal. In respect of comparative hardship, landlords had pleaded that tenant was doing other business also and had let out some shops. The Courts below held that no documents in regard thereto could be filed by the landlords.

6. Appellate Court also held that during pendency of appeal landlord had sold two shops. However, those shops were sold to the tenants of the said shops, who were continuing in possession since long. One s