Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioners challenge the order dated 30th November, 2004, passed by the prescribed authority in P.A. Case No. 69 of 2001 and the order dated 20th January, 2005, passed by the appellate authority in Rent Appeal No. 6 of 2005, under the provisions of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-12 and 14, respectively, to the writ petition.
(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the landlord of the accommodation in question and the petitioners, who are five in numbers, are the tenants in five shops in the building in which the landlords are residing in the rest of the portion of the building. The respondents-landlords filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (here-in-after shall be referred to as 'the Act') before the prescribed authority for the release of the accommodation in question, i.e., House No. D-62/43-C, Mohalla Sonia, Varanasi City, on the ground that the landlords require the aforesaid shops for establishing the business in the aforesaid shops and the need of the landlords are bona fide and that the tilt of the comparative hardship is also in favour of the landlords because of the fact that all the five tenants have suitable alternative accommodation, wherein the business is being carried out either by themselves, or through some of the family members of tenants-petitioners.
(3.) The tenants-petitioners contested the aforesaid release application filed by the landlords before the prescribed authority by filing the written statement in which the tenants have taken the stand that landlady, namely, Smt. Pushpa Mishra has got no issue, therefore she has no need for the accommodation occupied by the tenants, more so the tenants have also mentioned that Late Gyanendra Nath Mishra, husband of the landlady Smt. Pushpa Mishra was engineer and he has got houses in Kanpur, Fatehpur and Varanasi districts. The tenants further contended that she is a wealthy person and in fact the landlady wants to sell the disputed property, which is in occupation of the petitioners-tenant. In the alternative, it is contented by the tenant-petitioners that landlady Smt. Pushpa Mishra wants to open a Hotel in the accommodation in dispute. The petitioners-tenant have also taken the stand that during the life time of husband of the landlady Smt. Pushpa Mishra, namely Late Gyanendra Nath Mishra also filed an application before the prescribed authority for the release of the aforesaid accommodation, which application has been rejected by the prescribed authority on 31st March, 1995. Aggrieved by the order dated 31st March, 1995, passed by the prescribed authority filed an appeal being Rent Appeal No. 156 of 1995 before the appellate authority. The said rent appeal filed by Gyanendra Nath Mishra was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 18th May, 2001. Learned counsel for the tenants contended that in the circumstance the earlier decision of the prescribed authority affirmed by the appellate authority will have binding effect and the present application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act is barred by the principles of res -judicata, as the present application has been filed only after seven months of the decision of the appeal filed by Gyanendra Nath Mishra, which has been dismissed on 18th May, 2001. On merits, the tenants-petitioners have also taken up the case that the need of the landlords is not bona fide and that even assuming that the need of the landlord is bona fide, the tilt of the comparative hardship is in favour of the tenants-petitioners.;