Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Shafiq Mirza, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mohd. Adil Khan, counsel for respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition, petitioners have challenged order dated 3.9.2009 passed by District Judge, Harodi in Rent Appeal No. 2 of 2008, Mohd. Waris Khan v. Mohd. Zafar thereby allowing appeal of the landlord in respect to release of a shop.

3. Factual matrix of the present case are that Mod. Waris Khan/landlord moved an application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 inter alia stating therein that he is owner/landlord of shop situated at Mohalla Vehra Saudagar West, Bara Chauraha, Pargana Bangar, Tehsil and District Hardoi, purchased from its previous owner Rahul Asthana and Kapil Asthana by registered sale deed 5.7.1997, petitioner are tenant in the said shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 120/-.

4. In the release application, landlord/respondent pleaded that his family is consisting of himself and two children. He failed to get any employment, so the shop in question purchased by him thereafter, gave notice to tenant/petitioner through his counsel Sri Shiv Sahai Misra on 14.3.2000 served upon them but they did not vacate the shop.

5. It is further pleaded in release application that landlord also apprised tenants the shops are available at Shankar Market near Arya Kanya Pathshala, Hardoi but no heed has been paid by tenants in this regard finally they refused to vacate the shop in question which is bona fidely required by him in order to run his business to earn livelihood of his family, so release application filed.

6. Petitioner/tenant contested release application by filing written statement denying the need of the landlord, however admitted that he is owner of the shop in question. In the written statement, it has been pleaded on behalf of petitioner that they filed suit for permanent injunction (suit No. 276 of 1997, Shoib Khan v. Kapil Asthana and others) in which temporary injunction granted by Court concerned on 21.5.1997 served on the landlord/respondent on 24.5.1997. Inspite of knowing the said fact landlord purchased the shop in question with ulterior motive to evict them, further if the landlord has genuine need of shop he should not purchase the shop in question which is under dispute subject to litigation rather purchase a vacant shop which is itself goes to show that the need of the landlord is neither genuine nor bona fide.

7. In written statement, it has been further pleaded that the said injunction suit (Suit No. 276 of 1997) decreed in their favour thereafter release application filed, and the landlord is carrying out his business of repair Torch, Pressure Cooker, Stove etc. in a shop which is nearby situated to disputed shop under the tenancy of his father Sri Saukat Ali Zamal. Further during the pendency of release application Sri Saukat Ali Zamal died, as such by way of amendment it was brought on record by the petitioner, now landlord/respondent become tenant of the shop initially under the tenancy of his father, as his other brothers are doing separate business. So, there is no bona fide need exist on the part of landlord to get shop in dispute release in his favour.

8. In addition to abovesaid facts, it was also brought on record by tenants that they had searched for alternate accommodation/shop in Shanker Market where they are doing business of General Merchant from the shop in dispute in the name and style of Roshan Store which is only source of income of their family but they are unable to get the same.

9. After exchange of pleadings, evidences etc. the Prescribed Authority in order to decide P.A. Case No. 16 of 2001, framed three issued, namely :

(1) Kya Prarthi ki prashangat dukan kis aawashyakta hai?

(2) Kya Prarthi ki ukt aawashyakta hai?

(3) Prashngat dukan ke babat tulnatmak kathinai kis paksh ko adhik gohi.

10. Prescribed Authority on the basis of material on record in respect to iss