Mahendra Dayal,J.

1. This is tenants' writ petition, assailing the judgment and order dated 22.5.2006, passed by the Prescribed Authority, 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.20, Lucknow, whereby the release application of the opposite party no.3 was allowed and the judgement and order dated 12.5.2008, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.15, Lucknow, whereby the Rent Appeal No. 10 of 2006, preferred against the order of the Prescribed Authority, was dismissed.

2. The opposite party no.3 sought release of a three door shop situated on the ground floor together with the room on 1st floor house at Dr. B.N. Verma Road, Lucknow, being part of building no. 173/63 & 51. It was alleged that Sewa Ram was the tenant in aforesaid shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 35/-. The shop in the tenancy of Sewa Ram has been locked since 1996 and he has seized to carry on his business from the said shop. It was further alleged that the tenant Sewa Ram was intending to sublet the shop to some other person. The landlord further pleaded that Sewa Ram had started his business at Booth Nath Market, Indira Nagar, Lucknow in the name of "Asrani Store". According to the landlord- opposite party no.3, he along with the opposite parties no. 4 to 6 are carrying on business at Barabanki under the name and style of "East India Tenary Company". His family consists of his wife, 2 sons and 2 daughters. The locality where the shop in question is situated, is the Stationary Market and the landlord- opposite party no.3 wants to establish his elder son in Stationary business and hence the shop in question is needed. It was further alleged that the shop in question being located in the market area, is most suitable for starting a new business. The opposite party no.3- landlord requested Sewa Ram to vacate the shop but he refused to vacate the same. The landlord-opposite party no.3 further sated that since Sewa Ram had started his business at Booth Nath Market in Indira Nagar, Lucknow, therefore, he will not suffer any hardship in case the shop in question is released.

3. The tenant, namely, Sewa Ram contested the case and filed his written statement admitting himself as tenant of the shop in question but denying the fact that he had shifted his business to Bhooth Nath Market, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. It was further stated by him that the landlord-opposite party no.3 has been carrying on business at Barabanki under the name and style of "East India Tenar Company" and all his sons are engaged in the said business. His need in respect of the shop in question was therefore neither bonafide nor genuine. In fact the landlord-opposite party no.3 wanted to evict the tenant from the shop in question and let out the same to some other person on higher rent. The tenant further pleaded that he was an aged person and was also a heart patient. In case he is asked to vacate the shop in question he would suffer greater hardship. The tenant Sewa Ram further stated that he was not having cordial relation with his son and he was being looked after by one Vikash Mool Chandani. With the aforesaid allegations the tenant prayed that the application for release be rejected.

4. The parties led evidence before the learned Prescribed Authority who on the basis of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord-opposite party no.3 was genuine and the tenant Sewa Ram would not suffer any hardship in case he is asked to vacate the same. It also needs mention here that during the pendency of the release application the original tenant, namely, Sewa Ram died and in his place his widow and sons were impleaded who are the petitioners in this writ petition.

5. Feeling dis-satisfied with the order of the learned Prescribed Authority, the petitioners preferred Rent Appeal which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.15, Lucknow.

6. I have heard Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Mohiuddin Khan and S