Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Ajay Kumar Chaurasia for the respondent; and perused the record.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 12.6.2012 and 31.3.2017 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 11, Allahabad in P.A. Case No. 82 of 2009 and Additional District Judge, Court No. 19, Allahabad in Rent Control Appeal No. 97 of 2012 respectively.

3. A perusal of the record would reveal that the landlady-respondent had filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the accommodation in dispute on the ground that she being an old lady residing with her husband at village Sikandra, desires to reside in the city with her daughter Zakia, who had been living in a tenanted accommodation, which would enable her to avail better medical facility available in the city.

4. The said release application was contested, inter alia, on the following grounds : (a) that Zakia was a married daughter and in fact she was not even daughter of the landlady because she was daughter of landlady’s sister and since there is no provision of adoption in Muslim Law, therefore, she cannot be considered to be a daughter and as such her need cannot be considered for the purpose of release; (b) that the premises in dispute though was earlier allotted to the landlady on lease by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad but the freehold deed was executed on 28.2.2008 therefore, the release application, which was filed within three years of acquisition of freehold rights, was hit by the proviso of Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972; and (c) that in the year 2003, an agreement for sale was entered into between landlady and the defendant-tenant for sale of the accommodation in dispute in connection with which a suit for specific performance had been instituted being Original Suit No. 52 of 2007, which was pending, and therefore it could be inferred that the real intention of the landlady was only to sell off the property and as such she had no bona fide need.

5. Both the Courts below allowed the release application by holding that the desire of the landlady to live in the city with her daughter to avail better medical facility and to ensure that she is better looked after amounted to a bona fide need and, therefore, the validity of adoption was inconsequential. As regards validity of the proceeding in view of the bar imposed by the proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the Court below took the view that as already three years had passed before passing of the release order, the proviso would not come in the way of the Court to direct release of the accommodation and, in any case, the proviso applies to a new landlord. In addition to above, the Courts below found that the comparative hardship was also greater for the landlady because of her advanced age and more so because the defendant-tenant had not brought any material on record to show that during the pendency of the release application, any effort was made by him to search for an alternative accommodation.

6. Assailing the order passed by the Courts below, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a married daughter cannot be treated as a member of the family of the landlady under Section 3(g) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and since there is no provision for adoption in Muslim Law the alleged daughter of the landlady would have no legal right of residence, hence her need could not have been taken into consideration for allowing the release application. It is thus the case of the petitioner that the Courts below have committed manifest error of law by taking the need of a married daughter, and that too adopted, into account. It was also contended that since the freehold deed of the accommodation in dispute was executed on 28.3.2008 and the release application was filed on 1.12.2009, that is within three years from th