Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—The instant writ petition seeks to question the validity of an order dated 17.9.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 4 Moradabad in Rent Control Appeal No. 3 of 2008. By the said judgement, the appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for short ‘’the Act’) by Navin Chandra, the respondent/landlord and has ordered the eviction of the petitioners within a period of one month.

2. The proceedings arises out of a release application filed by the respondents/landlords (for short ‘’the landlords’) under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act against the petitioners alleging that a shop situated at Bazar Akbarpur Mandi, Tehsil Sambhal, District Moradabad was in tenancy of Harish Chandra (petitioner No. 2), on basis of a written rent note executed between him and their predecessor-in-interest, from whom they had purchased the shop. The information relating to purchase of the shop by sale-deed dated 4.7.1986 was duly furnished to petitioner No. 2, Harish Chandra by notice dated 3.1.1987. Petitioner No. 2 has taken up a job in the office of District Supply Officer and had handed over possession of the shop to petitioners 1 and 3. Petitioner No. 1 is alleged to be a business concern run by Smt. Usha Gupta, sister-in-law of petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 3 is the real brother of petitioner No. 2. They are refusing to vacate the shop although Navin Rastogi, respondent/landlord is sitting idle and is in bona fide need to start his own business.

3. The release application was not contested by Harish Chandra, petitioner No. 2. However, petitioners 1 and 3 filed a joint written statement and wherein they claimed that the shop had been in the tenancy of M/s. Laxmi Traders, petitioner No. 1 and that rent till 30.6.1995 was also duly accepted by the landlords but thereafter they stopped accepting the rent. It was further alleged that since the landlords do not admit petitioners 1 and 3 as tenant, consequently release application under Section 21(1)(a) would not be maintainable against them. They also disputed the alleged need of the landlords.

4. The Prescribed Authority rejected the release application holding that the alleged need of the landlords was not bona fide nor they would suffer any hardship. Aggrieved thereby, landlord-Navin Chandra carried the matter in appeal under Section 22 of the Act, being Rent Appeal No. 3 of 2008. The appeal has been allowed by the appellate Court by impugned judgement dated 17.9.2009.

5. Sri Kshitij Shailendra, counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the own case of the landlords in the release application that petitioners 1 and 3 are not tenants but illegal occupants, consequently, release application would not be maintainable as it lies only against a sitting tenant. His next submission is that the finding recorded by the appellate Court regarding need of respondent No. 1 is not sustainable in law in as much as the statement of Hari Om Rastogi, father of the respondent-landlords recorded in SCC Suit No. 8 of 1999 admitting that respondent Navin Chandra was residing at Chandigarh, has been ignored from consideration.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlords supported the decision rendered by the appellate authority and urged that the findings recorded therein being findings of facts do not warrant any interference by the writ Court.

7. The specific case of the landlords in the release application was that petitioner No. 2 was tenant of the shop in dispute in pursuance of a written rent note executed between him and their predecessor-in-interest. Petitioner No. 2 did not file any written statement nor contested the proceedings by entering appearance either before the Prescribed Authority or before the appellate Court. On the other hand petitioners 1 and 3 claimed that tenancy was in the name of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 3 alleged that he was also tenant of the shop. Smt. Usha Gupta, w