JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present three writ petitions have been instituted under Article227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the concurrent orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority in proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Since the issues involved in all three petitions arise out of common facts and relate to the same property, and the impugned orders are interconnected, they are being considered and disposed of together by this common judgment and order.

2. The petitioners are tenants of different shop premises situated in Dehradun, whereas Respondent no. 1 is the landlady of the said premises. The landlady instituted proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, seeking release of the tenanted shops for her bona fide requirement.

3. The Prescribed Authority, by order dated 04.03.2017, allowed the release application. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 6 of 2017, which was dismissed by the 2^ndAdditional District Judge, Dehradun, on 16.04.2022. These concurrent orders are assailed in the present writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. On 07.06.2022, this Court, while issuing notice, granted interim protection to the Petitioners against dispossession, subject to payment of use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month in WPMS Nos. 1187 and 1188 of 2022, and Rs. 15,000/- per month in WPMS No. 1189 of 2022. Payments were directed to be made on or before the seventh day of each succeeding month. Later, considering the difficulty expressed by the Petitioners in tendering rent directly, this Court permitted a deposit before the Prescribed Authority. On applications moved by the landlady, such deposits were allowed to be withdrawn by order dated 18.08.2023.

5. During the pendency of the writ petitions, counter-affidavits, rejoinders, and supplementary affidavits were exchanged. The matters were adjourned on multiple occasions due to requests of counsel, recusal by certain Benches, and roster changes. Interim orders dated 07.06.2022 were, however, extended from time to time and continued to remain operative until the final hearing.

6. On 17.05.2024, the rejoinder and supplementary affidavits were taken on record, and the cases were directed to be listed along with connected matters. On 30.07.2025, arguments were concluded, and judgment was reserved.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the impugned orders dated 04.03.2017, passed by the Prescribed Authority, and 16.04.2022, passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Dehradun, are unsustainable in law and on facts. It was urged that the authorities below have failed to appreciate the material placed on record in its correct perspective.

9. It was contended that the Petitioners have been carrying on their business from the tenanted shops for several years and their livelihood depends entirely upon such business. According to the learned counselfor the Petitioners, the comparative hardship has not been adequately assessed, and the need projected by the landlady is neither bona fide nor pressing.

10. It was further submitted that the Petitioners have complied with all interim directions issued by this Court, including regular payment of use and occupation charges at the rate fixed by the Court, and no default has been committed on their part. On this basis, learned counsel argued that equity also lies in favour of the Petitioners and they deserve to be protected from eviction.

11. Learned counsel for the Petitionersalso pointed out that the landlady has alternative accommodation available, and therefore, the requirement set up by her cannot be accepted as genuine. It was contended that both the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority f