IMPORTANT POINT
Rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of institution of the suit although subsequent events can be taken note of but while doing so comparative hardship of the partiers had to be considered.

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

This appeal by way of special leave is preferred against the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Appeal No.19835 of 2003, wherein the High Court affirmed the order passed by Additional District Judge, Moradabad, thereby setting aside release order dated 29.10.1991 passed by the Prescribed Authority.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant is the owner and landlord of the premises in question, which is a non-residential accommodation. Allegedly, the premises was let out by ancestors of the appellant's family when they did not require the premises for personal use as the previous owner of the accommodation Smt. Krishna Devi wife of Kunwar Mahendra Pratap Singh had adequate place to reside in. After the demise of Smt. Krishna Devi, appellant Nidhi became the owner of the premises in question and continued to receive rent from the respondent. The appellant filed a release application being PCS No.97 of 1987, under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act XIII of 1972), seeking possession of the suit premises on the ground of her bona fide personal requirement. The appellant alleged that she is in need of the premises as the appellant wants to accommodate her grandparents in the demised house who live in village and are in need of care and medical treatment. Moreover, the appellant alleged that she and her younger sister required separate room for study. It was alleged that the respondent carries out the said hotel business for namesake only and is being carried out by the servant of the respondent. It was further alleged by the appellant that the respondent's main business is that of a sweet shop and he has sufficient means to take some other place on rent to run his hotel business.

3. Respondent-tenant admitted the tenancy in the property in dispute and resisted the application for release of accommodation, claiming that the appellant and her sister live in a big house called Kath Mahal which has sufficient space comprising of large rooms and large halls. It was averred that the grandparents of the appellant are big landlords in the village and live in a palatial house there and they are unable to climb stairs in the suit premises. Also, the alleged business of sweet shop is run by his son and the entire family is dependent upon the income from hotel business.

4. Upon consideration of evidence and on hearing the parties, the Prescribed Authority held that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellant and taking into consideration the social status of family and that the grandparents of the appellant want to live with her parents, found that the appellant bona fide requires the premises and vide order dated 29.10.1991 allowed the application for release of suit premises. The Prescribed Authority directed the appellant-landlord to compensate the respondent by giving him a sum equivalent to two years of rent before taking possession.

5. Respondent-tenant challenged the aforesaid order by way of Rent Control Appeal No.72 of 1991 under Section 22 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972, before the Additional District Judge at Moradabad, who vide order dated 04.02.2003, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority holding that the appellant's need for the suit premises is not based on bona fide requirement and her need for accommodation is not immediate or pressing.

6. Aggrieved by the said order of the appellate court, the appellant filed Writ Appeal No.19835 of 2003 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court upon consideration of the facts and materials placed on record before it and after hearing the contentions of the parties before it dismissed the writ appeal holding that the relief claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent development in circumstances, become inappropriate. The High Court f