Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—Before going to the matter of merits of the case in view of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is constrained to put on record that Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at length. He had supplied seven compilations from compilation No. 1 to Compilation No. 7 containing synopsis of the case laws in addition to a written submissions in support of the oral submissions made by him in the Court. This has resulted in making the record too bulky. Each compilation contains number of judgements on each point. For example, in compilation No. 2, on the question of consideration of subsequent events, he had referred to ten judgements of this Court and the Supreme Court. In fact one judgement of this Court in the case of Saroj Kumari (deceased) and others v. Suresh Chand and others, in Writ Petition No. 8017 of 2003 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Agarwal on 20.12.2012 has been referred at two places with two different equivalent citations and by mentioning different paragraph of the same judgement giving an impression that these are two different judgements on the same point. The Court is constrained to record that this approach of the counsel is nothing but an effort either to mislead the Court or to make the record so bulky as to make it difficult for the Court to decide the matter. Similarly on the point of “duties of Appellate Court to discuss the reasons assigned by the Trial Court while upsetting its finding and to consider the evidence of the parties”, nineteen judgements of this Court and the Supreme Court have been given in compilation No. 4. In compilation No. 1, there are fourteen judgements on four different points and in compilation No. 7 there are twenty seven judgements on different points. There are two other compilations i.e. compilation Nos. 3 and 6 which also contain four judgements, thus approximately hundred judgements have been cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in seven compilations supplied by him before oral argument in the matter had started.

2. After the arguments were over on 5.1.2016, he again passed on a written submission in support of his oral submission citing a number of judgements in various paragraph of the written submissions.

3. This Court may note that the bulky records took lot of precious time of the Court to go through the case laws cited by the counsel and this has caused delay in delivery of the judgement.

4. This Court may further record that after going through the entire pleadings in the writ petition and also the supporting material supplied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the nature of compilation Nos. 1 to 7 and written submission dated 5.1.2016 in support of oral submission, the Court would deal with each point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner but will only refer to those judgements which it think are relevant to deal with the controversy, so as not to make the judgement too long and cumbersome.

5. This writ petition is directed against the judgement and order dated 26.5.2007 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act), Bareilly in Rent Control Appeal 6 of 2004 (Nand Kishore v. Rajesh Prasad). The brief facts of the case relevant to decide the controversy are :

6. The release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by three brothers namely Nand Kishore, Sundar Lal, Jagdish Saran all sons of Tara Chand residents of Maarwariganj, Bareilly, for release of a godown situated in Marwariganj, Bareilly on the ground of their personal need. The need set up was for three sons of applicant No. 1, 2 and 3 namely Sri Vishnu Kumar, Narendra Kumar, Dheeraj Kumar. It was categorically stated in the release application that sons of the applicants had completed their education but they could not settle in their carreer and they want to establish a new venture for the sale of Empty Tin Cans. As a larger area was required for storage of t