JUDGMENT :

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Manish Tandon and Sri Manas Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is tenants' petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 16.7.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Varanasi in P.A. Appeal No. 118 of 2012 allowing the release application of the landlord-respondent No. 1.

3. The case has checkered history. One Smt. Kutra Devi was the owner and landlord of House No. D-46/6, Manihari Tola, Luxa Road, Varanasi. On the ground floor of the premises, three shops exist. Out of three shops, one shop was in possession of the landlord and the adjoining second shop was in possession of one tenant Sahdev and the third shop was in possession Salikram (father of petitioners and defendants-respondent Nos. 2 to 6).

4. In the year 1978, P.A. Case No. 126 of 1978 was filed by Smt. Kutra Devi setting up need of her son which was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on 16.2.1980. Against which, an appeal was preferred which was also dismissed on 10.5.1982.

5. In the year 1983, Smt. Kutra Devi filed two release applications under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against both the tenants-Salikram and Sahdev, which was registered as P.A. Case No. 170 of 1983 (Smt. Kutra Devi vs. Salikram) and P.A. Case No. 169 of 1983 (Smt. Kutra vs. Sahdev). Both the release applications were allowed vide order dated 4.3.1986.

6. Against the said order, two rent appeals being Rent Appeal No. 97 and 98 of 1996 were preferred. On 12.5.1989, both the rent appeals were allowed.

7. Against the said order, two writ petitions were filed by the landlord before this Court being Writ Petition No. 14893 of 1989 (Natthu Lal vs. Gopal) and Writ Petition No. 14895 of 1989 (Natthu Lal vs. Sahdev).

8. It would not be out of case to mention that the original landlord Smt. Kutra Devi died on 17.8.1988 and Natthu Lal, thus, became the owner and landlord of the accommodation in dispute. On 5.5.2005, the other tenant Sahdev vacated the adjoining shop, which was subject-matter of dispute in Writ Petition No. 14895 of 1989. vide judgment dated 4.7.2005, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the Writ Petition No. 14893 of 1989 on the ground that the need of Natthu Lal was satisfied by increasing dimensions of the shop after removing the wall in between the shop.

9. It was in the year 2006 that a fresh release application was filed by the landlord Natthu Lal being registered as Case No. 22 of 2006 setting up bona fide need of his son Kanhaiya Lal and daughter-in-law, Meenakshi Devi.

10. On 12.7.2012, the said release application was rejected, against which a Rent Appeal bearing No. 118 of 2012 was filed and the same was dismissed on 23.1.2016. A Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14181 of 2016 was filed before this Court assailing the orders of the Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Court.

11. On 20.8.2018, the said writ petition was allowed to the extent that the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Court directing for consideration of the need of son, daughter-in-law and grand children and the landlord was given liberty to amend his pleadings and file evidence in that regard.

12. After the remand, the release application was amended on 1.5.2019 and need of grand sons and grand daughters was set up. The Rent Appeal No. 118 of 2012 was allowed by the Court below on 16.7.2019 and the need of the son, daughter-in-law, grand sons and grand daughters were found to be genuine and bona fide. Hence, the present writ petition.

13. Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Court below while allowing the release application did not record any finding on the bona fide need, rather after discussing the facts set up by the parties and referring to the various judgments found the need of the landlord to be g