Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—In both these matters, though proceedings are registered separately, but, involve common questions of law and fact hence as agreed by learned counsel for the parties, both cases are being decided by this common judgment.

2. In both the writ petitions, impugned orders are of same date i.e. 14th July, 2004 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Varanasi. However, in Writ Petition No. 29301 of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “first petition”), impugned order dated 14th July, 2004 has been passed in Rent Appeal No. 23 of 1999 arising from P.A. Case No. 37 of 1992 while in Writ Petition No. 29304 of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “second petition”), impugned order of the same date has arisen from Rent Appeal No. 24 of 1999, flowing from P.A. Case No. 35 of 1992.

3. For the purpose of discussion, the facts and pleadings in first petition are being referred to.

4. The Appellate Authority allowed both appeals, as a result thereof, release application of respondents landlords in respect to building in dispute has stood allowed. It has further directed petitioner-tenant to hand over vacant possession thereof to the respondents.

5. The dispute relates to a shop, part of house No. CK37/16, Vishwanath Gali, Varanasi. It is an ancestral property of respondents. For the purpose of present case suffice it to mention that one Raja Sao had four sons including Sri Laxman Sao and Bharat Sao. The respondents are legal heirs of late Laxman Sao. The respondents claiming themselves to be owner and landlord in respect to shop in dispute, instituted proceedings for release thereof by filing application dated 15th September, 1992 in the Court of Prescribed Authority/Ist Civil Judge, Varanasi. The averments relating to status of ownership and landlord of applicant-respondents were not disputed by petitioners in written statement though pleas of respondents about personal need and its being bona fide and genuine, and, about hardship, was denied.

6. The legal heirs of late Bharat Sao transferred their share in house No. CK37/16 by selling it to Sri Munshi Lal (now deceased and substituted by his legal heirs i.e. petitioners 1/1 to 1/4) vide sale-deed dated 4.11.1993. It clearly mentioned that they have one-forth share in the aforesaid house, which is being sold vide aforesaid sale-deed. Thereafter petitioner tenant filed misc. application before Prescribed Authority stating that suit/release application No. 37 of 1992 has rendered infructuous since petitioner-tenant has acquired status of owner of disputed shop vide sale-deed dated 4.11.1993, executed by co-owners of property in dispute. The petitioner also stated in his affidavit sworn on 4th January, 1996, that shop, in which he is doing business, was actually assigned to the share of Chhedi Lal, Goverdhan, Changur and Kallu @ Anil, sons of late Bharat Sao. Paras 6, 7, 8 of affidavit read as under:

“6. That it appears that the aforesaid house was partitioned amongst the co-owers and the three rooms adjacent to the Lane which east-west portion is 11 Feet and North-South portion is 5-1/2 Feet the total area is 60 Square feet assigns to Chhedi Lal, Chhangur, Govardhan and Kallu alias Anil Keshari in accordance with their respective share. Thus the room in which the plaintiff shop is existed assigned into share of Chhedi and others alongwith other two shops.

7. That Chhedi Lal, Changur, Govardhan and Kallu alias Anil Keshari sons of Late Bharat Saw have desired to sell his assigned portion of house No. CK 37/16, which was allocated to them in accordance with mutual family partitioned. The plaintiff/deponent was tenant since 40 years ago and running his business in the shop of which the sons of Bharat Saw became exclusive owner in accordance with mutual family partition and as such he accept the proposal of the sons of Bharat Saw and firstly Chhedi Lal, Govardhan, Chhangur and Kallu alias Anil Keshari executed a registered sale-deed of Agreement to sale on 6.7.