Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri V.K.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Anil Tripathi, Advocate for the respondents.

2. This is landlord’s writ petition, who has felt aggrieved by judgment and order dated 25.1.2003 passed by Appellate Court i.e. Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act), Allahabad whereby Appellate Court had allowed respondents-tenant’s appeal and has set aside Prescribed Authority’s judgment and order dated 15.11.1999 in Rent Case No. 32 of 1997. The result is that petitioner’s release application filed under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”) for release of House No. 55, Sadar Bazar Cantt., Allahabad has stood rejected.

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present dispute are that petitioner is the owner and landlord of House No. 55, Sadar Bazar Cantt., Allahabad. Earlier the aforesaid house was owned by petitioner’s father Sri Chotey Lal, who let out the same to Sri Hazari Lal, long back. After the death of petitioner’s father, house in question devolved upon petitioner and his brother Tribhuvan Narayan vide registered partition deed dated 28.1.1980 both, settled for half of the house in each share between themselves.

4. Sri Hazari Lal, initial tenant, died on 7.3.1984 whereafter tenancy devolved upon legal heirs of erstwhile tenant but a fresh agreement was executed on 13.8.1984 with respondents-tenants namely Sri Suresh Chandra Son of Late Hazari Lal and Smt. Kaushalya Devi, widow of Late Hazari Lal, whereon it was stipulated that let out accommodation shall be vacated by respondent-tenants after marriage of Nirmala Devi sister of respondent No. 1 and daughter of respondent No. 2.

5. It is claimed that in view of aforesaid rent agreement, only respondent No. 1 is the tenant in the disputed accommodation. The petitioner also owned house No. 54A, Sadar Bazar Cantt. Allahabad and filed an application in 1980 for release thereof, which was allowed and release order was maintained up to High Court as a result whereof he got possession of the said premises. The petitioner’s children subsequently became major necessitated additional accommodation by the petitioner. His eldest daughter married at Mirzapur having two children and his two sons, namely Anoop Kumar is also married and the second son Dharmendra is running a video shop and is also of marriagable age and for them, petitioner need aforesaid accommodation. Besides that, his two daughters are studying in B.A. IInd year and IIIrd year.

6. Prescribed Authority allowed application holding that petitioner is the owner of half of the premises and his need for release of accommodation is genuine and bona fide. It also recorded findings on comparative hardship in favour of petitioner-landlord hence vide judgment dated 25.11.1999, the release application in respect of disputed accommodation was allowed directing respondent-tenants to vacate premises and hand over possession to the petitioner within one month. The Trial Court’s judgment was challenged in Rent Control Appeal No. 371 of 1999 filed by respondent No. 1 which has been allowed by Appellate Court vide judgment dated 25.1.2003.

7. The Appellate Court has reversed findings of Trial Court finding that besides House No. 54A, which was already released in favour of the petitioner, he had another accommodation namely House No. 359, Sadar Bazar Cantt., wherein accommodation consisted of two rooms and one shop. The Appellate Court in reversing findings of Trial Court looked into certain subsequent events namely death of one of petitioner’s elder son and marriage of another daughter of petitioner. It is also not in dispute that during pendency of this writ petition, even petitioner himself has died.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that facts and circumstances, as available on the date when the cause of a