Hon’ble Dr. Satish Chandra, J.—This petition has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 9th April, 2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Lakhimpur Kheri in Rent Appeal No. 9 of 2005.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a tenant in the shop in question. The original owner of the shop in dispute was Late Lala Dharamdutt, who had let out the above shop to Late Sri Kishori Lal, the father of the petitioner from whom the tenancy of the above shop has been inherited by the petitioner who is running and maintaining the above shop. The original owner and tenants have died and the second generation is in the litigation. After the death of Late Lala Dharamdutt, his wife Smt. Shakuntala Devi has inherited the ownership of the shop and after the death of Kishori Lal, the petitioner has become tenant. On 21.12.1993, release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to the Act) was filed jointly by Sri Shankuntala Devi and her daughter Smt. Gyanwati for alleged need of Anand Kumar s/o Smt. Gyanwati. On 21.5.2005, the Civil Judge (J.D.) rejected the application for release of the shop in dispute and an appeal was filed against the said decision before the Additional District Jude, Court No. 6, Lakhimpur Kheri, who passed the impugned order and allowed the appeal. During pendency of the appeal, Smt. Shankuntala Devi died on 24.1.2002 and Naresh Chandra Gupta, husband of Smt. Gyanwati, was substituted as legal representative of Late Shankuntala Devi. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri.

3. With this background, learned counsel Sri S.K.Mehrotra, submits that after the death of original owner Lala Dharamdutt, the ownership of the shop in question devolved upon his wife Smt. Shankuntala Devi and as such she was the land-lady of the shop in dispute. Smt. Gyanwati is the married daughter of Lala Dharamdutt and Smt. Shankuntala Devi. The original release application was filed for the alleged bona fide need of Anand Kumar s/o Smt. Gyanwati. In the above application, it was falsely stated that Smt. Shankuntala Devi and her daughter Smt. Gyanwati both are the owners of the shop and are co-landlords. It was further stated that both of them inherited the ownership of the shop in dispute. He submits that the daughter is not covered by the definition of ‘family’ as defined in Section 3(g) of the Act. Smt. Gyanwati was already married when her father Lala Dharam Dutt died and she was living with her in-laws. So, Smt. Gyanwati Devi could not be considered to be a member of ‘family’ of Smt. Shakuntala Devi, the landlady of the shop in question.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the Prescribed Authority while dismissing the release application observed that landlady was not having any bona fide need of the shop in question. This observation was not reversed in appeal. The judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority was illegally reversed by the appellate Court. According to him, the appeal under Section 22 of the Act legally is not maintainable, the finding of the Court below in this regard is perverse and has vitiated the impugned judgment and order passed by it. The claim for release of the shop in question under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act has been well-settled to be a personal right of the landlady in the accommodation in dispute and the application for release has to be prosecuted on the basis of the personal right of the landlady and cannot be substituted subsequently on the demise of the landlady and the finding recorded by the appellate Court is manifestly perverse. The order passed by appellate Court suffers with manifest defects and error in law. He also submitted that the lower appellate Court has not mentioned any finding pertaining to the bona fide need and comparative h