JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arpit Agrawal, Counsel for the respondent.

2. Petitioners by means of present writ petition have challenged the judgment and order dated 31.1.2017 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Prescribed Authority, Pilibhit allowing the P.A. Case No. 18 of 2014 (Raj Kumar Vs. Yashwant Singh and another) and the judgment and order dated 24.9.2019 passed by Third Additional District & Sessions Judge, Pilibhit dismissing the P.A. Appeal No. 5 of 2017 (Yashwant Singh (deceased) and others Vs. Raj Kumar) filed by the petitioners against the order dated 31.1.2017.

3. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred as 'respondent') filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as 'U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972' ) for release of a shop (hereinafter referred as 'disputed shop') situated in Mohalla Khushimal opposite Chhipiyan Masjid, Station Road, Pilibhit against petitioners-tenant (hereinafter referred as 'petitioners'). The need set up by the respondent was that the disputed shop is required for setting up a mobile phone shop and its accessories for the respondent and his son. It is further averred that the respondent has taken a shop on rent at Rs.1260/-per month for doing business opposite the disputed shop in the market of Jaiveer Singh Parmar. It is further averred that the release of the disputed shop would satisfy the need of the respondent and his son.

4. The release application was contested by the petitioners by filing written statement denying the fact that the disputed shop is bonafide required by the respondent for establishing the business for himself and his son. Besides above several other pleas were taken by the petitioners in their objection against the release application.

5. The Trial Court framed as many as three issues. Issue No. 1 was in respect to the relationship between the respondent and the petitioners as landlord and tenant. The issue No. 2 was in respect of bonafide need of the respondent, and Issue No. 3 was in respect of comparative hardship.

6. The Trial Court by placing reliance upon paragraph No. 7 of the written statement admitting the tenancy of the disputed shop held that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondent. The trial court after appreciating elaborately the evidence on record found that the respondent has established that he is doing business in a rented shop and his son is unemployed, therefore, the need of the respondent is bonafide and genuine and comparative hardship lay in his favour. Consequently, it allowed the release application.

7. The order of the Trial Court dated 31.1.2017 was assailed by the petitioners in appeal. The Appellate Court found no illegality in the order of the Prescribed Authority in allowing the release application. Consequently, it dismissed the appeal.

8. Challenging the aforesaid order, the only submission urged by the counsel for the petitioners is that the case of the respondent in the release application was that the disputed shop is bonafide required by the respondent for establishing the business for himself and his son after reconstruction, therefore, the authority below should have considered the financial capacity of the respondent to reconstruct the disputed shop. Thus, he submits that in the absence of any satisfaction recorded by the authorities below that the respondent has the financial capacity to reconstruct the shop, the authorities below have committed a manifest error of law in allowing the release application. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of K.N. Anantharaja Gupta Vs. D.V. Usha Vijaykumar (smt), 2007 (13) SCC 592.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the issue whether the respondent has the financia