- (1.) S. P. Mehrotra, J. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 10th November, 2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Farrukhabad in Rent Control Appeal No. 26 of 2001.
(2.) THE dispute relates to a shop, the details whereof have been given in the release application referred to hereinafter. THE said shop has, hereinafter, been referred to as "the disputed shop". From a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and the annexures thereto, it appears that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, as applicant Nos. 1 and 2 filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "the Act") in respect of the disputed shop impleading the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as the respondent Nos. 3 to 11 herein as the opposite parties in the said release application. It was, inter alia, stated in the said release application that Kishan Lal, the predecessor in interest of the said opposite parties in the release application, was the tenant of the disputed shop; and that the said Kishan Lal died on 25th March, 1994 leaving behind the said opposite parties in the said release application as his legal repres e B. Balaiah v. Chandoor Lachaiah, AIR 1965 Andhra Pradesh 435 REFERRED TO ntatives; and that though only Sanjeev Kumar (opposite party No. 1 in the release application and petitioner No. 1 herein) was carrying on business of gold-smith, but in order to avoid complications, other legal representatives had also been impleaded as the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 12 in the said release application (petitioners 2 and 3 and respondent Nos. 3 to 11 herein); and that the respondent No. 1 herein (applicant No. 1 in the said release application) wanted to carry on Jewellary shop with allied work of goldsmith in the disputed shop so as to get rid of unemployment as also for upliftment and maintenance of the family, in asmuch as in very near future, marriages were to be performed in the family; and that besides the disputed shop, there was no other shop in the family of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein (applicants in the said release application) so as to carry on the said business; and that Ram Autar, father of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein (applicants in the said release application) was carrying on gold-smith business in a rented shop of Ram Adhar, and that the need of the respondent No. 1 herein (applicant No. 1 in the said release application) was genuine and hard pressing; and that the comparative hardship lay in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein (applicant Nos. 1 and 2 in the said release application ).
(3.) THE said release application was registered as P. A. Case No. 3 of 1998. Copy of the said release application has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It appears that the parties filed affidavits and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases.;