K. P. Singh. J. - (1.) :-
(2.) THIS is tenant's writ petition arising out of an application under Section 21-A of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of shop No. 45/1 situate in Moti Bazar Hathras, District Aligarh. The landlady, opposite party No. 3 in the present writ petition, wants release of the shop in question on the ground that her son Radhey Shyam did not take interest in the studies and wanted to start a general merchandise business hence the necessity for the shop in question. She had also alleged that her another son Sita Ram also did not pursue his studies and wanted to establish himself in the business in the books, hence a separate release application against the other tenants had been filed. According to the landlady the tenant petitioner had four more shops hence he was not to suffer any hardship and the release application deserved to be allowed. The tenant petitioner contested the release application on the ground that Radhey Shyam was a boy of bad habit and he really did not need any shop for business and that the .income of the landlady and her husband was enough to support the family and that the husband of the land lady demanded higher rent hence the application for release on incorrect facts.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority through its judgment dated 25-9-81 rejected the release application on the finding that the need of the landlady was not bonafide. Aggrieved by the judgment of Prescribed Authority the landlady had preferred an appeal which was allowed by the lower appellate court through its judgment dated 28-5-1982. Against the judgment of the lower appellate court the tenant petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of Constitution. 4-a. THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that during the pendency of the writ petition the landlady has succeeded in getting the shops released and since she has got possession over two shops and subsequent events during the pendency of the writ petition can be taken into account, the impugned judgment of the appellate court should be quashed and the appellate court should be asked to reconsider the claim of the petitioner. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the appellate court has failed to compare the needs of the tenant and that of the landlady in accordance with law and the rulings of this Court, hence its judgment should be quashed and the appellate court should be asked to redetermine the question strictly in accordance with law.;