Subsequent events can be considered in determining the bona fide need and comparative hardship between parties in release applications.

Anil Kumar,J.

Heard Sri Dipak Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent/ Landlords.

2. Facts, in brief , of the present case are that respondents no. 2 to 7 /landlords/ landladies have moved an application for release of the shop numbered as premises no. 10, Faizabad Road , Daliganj, P.S. Hasanganj, Lucknow under Section 21(1) (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act (Act No. XIII of 1972), registered as P.A. Case no. 86 of 1983 before the prescribed authority/ Civil Judge Malihabad, Lucknow. Petitioner, who is tenant in the said shop, filed his written statement. By order dated 19.12.1987, prescribed authority after taking into consideration the material on record, rejected the application for release holding therein that the premises was not bonafidely required for running the hotel business by Mohd Aris Khan in respect to whom the need has been set up in the release application and also held that the tenant is a reputed and established doctor, who will suffer great hardship.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, respondents preferred an appeal, appellate authority vide order dated 14.10.1993, dismissed the same by holding that though the need of the landlady is genuine, it cannot be released as the tenant will suffer greater hardship. Thereafter respondent/landlords challenged the order dated 19.12.1987 passed by prescribed authority and the order dated 14.10.1993 passed by appellate authority by filing Writ Petition No.8 (RC) of 1994 ( Smt. Bibi Begum Vs. Dr. Awdhesh Narain and others), vide order dated 13.10.2008, the relevant portion is quoted as under: -

" In view of above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the appellate court dated 14.10.1993 is quashed. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority for deciding if afresh. This Court is of the view that the appellate authority should given a fresh look to the appeal taking into account the latest rent laws, which have been spelt out in the present judgment and other judgments which may be placed by the contesting parties including tenant and form its opinion based on law and after considering all these points, the appellate authority shall deliver its judgment. The appeal shall be decided within two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that unnecessary adjournment shall be avoided."

4. Accordingly, the matter came up for consideration in Rent Appeal 5 of 1988 ( Bibi Begum and others Vs. Dr. Awadhesh Narain ) before appellate authority / Additional District Judge, Court no.13 , Lucknow, who by means of order dated 6.3.2009 allowed the same on the ground that the need as set up in the release application, that the shop in dispute is required for running business by Mohd. Aris Khan who is still unemployed, is genuine and bona fide coupled with the fact that no alternative accommodation has been searched out by the tenant.

5. Sri Dipak Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order submits that during the pendency of litigation before this Court landlord/landladies has got possession of another shop situated at the same place under the tenancy of Ramesh Chandr @ Ramesh Sindhi and from the said shop Mohd. Aris has started his business. In this regard he has placed reliance on the averments made in para 5,6, 7 and 8 of the third supplementary affidavit filed by the tenant , the same are reproduced as under: -

"5.That it was brought out by the petitioner that the shop( adjacent to the premises in question) which was in the tenancy of Hasa Mal was vacated but the same was let out to Shri Ramesh Chandra@ Ramesh Sindhi in 1979 who started running a chat & sweets shop. The said shop has recently been vacated by Shri Ramesh Chandra @ Ramesh Sindhi also. The said shop vacated by Shri Ramesh Chandra @ Ramesh Sindhi is almost equivalent to the shop/ premises in questio