Subsequent events can be considered in certain circumstances, but without an application for amendment of the pleadings, the relief cannot be granted based on altered circumstances.

Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner is the owner and landlord of a building situate at Kotana Road in the town of Baraut, district Meerut. The respondent No. 3 is the tenant of a shop situate on the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 208.33p. The petitioner filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the shop showing the need for his third son Sanjay Kumar Jain. The petitioner alleged that his third son was a student of B.A. and was not good in studies and had failed in his B.A. examination and that he did not wish to study any further and therefore, wanted to start a business of shoes and chappals. The landlord contended that apart from the building in question, he had no other premises where he could set up the business for his son and therefore, he required the shop to set up the business for his third son Sanjay Kumar Jain. The tenant respondent No. 3 contested the release application and denied that the need of the landlord, to set up the business for his son, was bona fide.

2. The prescribed authority dismissed the release application of the petitioner holding that the third son of the petitioner, namely, Sanjay Kumar Jain could carry on the business with his father, who was carrying on the business of shoes and chappals in a rented shop. The appellate court further found that the need of the tenant was greater than the need of the landlord.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the prescribed authority, the petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate court held that the need of the petitioner for his son was genuine and bona fide. The prescribed authority, however, found that the tenant would suffer greater hardship than the petitioner and on this basis dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition assailing the orders of the prescribed authority and the appellate authority. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioners third son Sanjay Kumar Jain died on 8.2.1992. The petitioner, thereafter, moved a miscellaneous application dated 24.9.1992, praying that in view of the subsequent events, the petitioners claim may be confined to the need of his fourth son, namely, Jitendra Kumar for setting up the business of general merchandise. By order-dated 8.9.1993, the Court directed that this application would be considered at the time of the hearing of the writ petition.

5. Heard Sri Atul Dayal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. D. Mandhyan, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Om Prakash, the learned for the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the subsequent events, the need of the petitioner be confined to the need for his youngest son and the shop may be released in favour of the petitioner to enable him to set up the business for his fourth son. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents contended that requirement for the shop shown in the application under Section 21 of the Act was confined only to the need for the third son, namely, Sanjay Kumar Jain and the application was not filed for the need of the fourth son. The learned counsel submitted that since Sanjay Kumar Jain has died, the requirement for the release of the shop has come to an end and therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous and should be dismissed as such.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the release application was not confined to the need for the third son, but was also confined for the need of the fourth son and therefore, the application of the petitioner filed under Section 21 of the Act would still survive.

8. In order to appreciate the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is essential to consider the averments made in the release application filed by the petitioner under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. In para 4 of the application, the petitioner has stated that the third son is studying in B.A