JUDGMENT S.C. Verma 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri S. N. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondents is not present. The tenant petitioner challenged the order of the prescribed authority dated 5-9-1981 and the appellate authority dated 25-5-1982 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Varanasi, in proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act no. 13 of 1972, The disputed premises formed part of house no. C-31/31 situate in Mohalla Englishia line, Varanasi, of which the respondent no. 3 is the landlord and the shop in dispute was let out to the petitioner in the year 1972. 3. In the release application it was alleged that the son of the landlord is to be settled in business, who after becoming major is sitting idle and wanted to do hosiery business in the disputed shop. The need was expressed to be bonafide and genuine. On the other hand, it was alleged that the tenant was doing business of newspaper agency and he would not be put to any loss in case he was evicted from the disputed shop. 4. The tenant petitioner contested the proceedings and alleged that the landlord has been running tea and betal shop in the same building and has sufficient income. The landlord is seventy years of age and his business is now being looked after by his son and he does not require any accommodation to settle the son separately, The landlord demolished part of the roof of the disputed shop during emergency period but it was repaired after the tenant's application was allowed under section 28 of the Act. The tenant would be put to greater hardship as he has no accommodation to shift his business. The prescribed authority considering the need of the landlord to settle his son in the hosiery business allowed the application and also found that the tenant would be put to lessor hardship. 5. The appellate authority also confirmed the aforesaid findings and it was held that the need of the landlord to settle his son in hosiery business is fully established and it is not correct that he is assisting his father or wish to establish in the same business along with his father. The appellate authority also affirmed the finding with regard to greater hardship to the landlord in this regard. 6. The appellate authority also affirmed the finding with regard to greater hardship to the landlord in this regard. 6. On the aforesaid findings the appeal of the tenant was dismissed by order dated 25-5-1982. Thus both the courts have released the disputed shop for the bonafide need of landlord Bechanlal to establish his son in hosiery business. The tenant filed writ petition before this Court challenging the orders dated 5-9-1981 and 25-5-1982. The petition was admitted by order dated 6-7-1982 and initially eviction of the tenant was stayed up to 6-9- 1982. The interim order staying the eviction was extended for six months by order dated 17-2-1933. After expiry of six months the interim order lapsed and neither it was extended nor any fresh orders were passed staying the eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner was later on evicted from the disputed premises. 7. The petitioner filed an application that the respondent no. 3 be restrained from alienating the property in dispute and further from demolishing or altering the accommodation in dispute by himself or through his agent. This application was filed on 29-4-1984 and this court by order dated 14-11-1985 declined to pass any order to restrain the respondents. A similar application dated 7-9-1983 of the petitioner for grant of fresh interim order to stay the eviction from the disputed shop was also rejected by order dated 15-2-1984. 8. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner filed an application dated 12-3-1985, in which it was indicated that the landlord Bechanlal has entered into registered agreement for sale with one Sri Om Prakash and Raman Lal Goel and subsequent purchaser Om Prakash and Ram Lal Goel be impleaded as the respondents. This application was allowed by order dated 9-2-1986 and both Om Prakash and Raman Goel were impleaded as the respondents to the writ petition. After the impleadment of Om Prakash and Raman Goel, a counter affidavit was filed by Sri Raman Goel in which it has been alleged that in pursuance of the impugned orders releasing the premises in favour of respondent no. 3 Sri Bechan Lal, the landlord obtained possession through Vakil Commissioner. It has also been alleged that in order to harass the landlord, the petitioner through his two sons, filed suit no. 179 of 1984 in the Court of City Munsif, Varanasi on false and frivolous grounds and had been harassing the landlord. 3 Sri Bechan Lal, the landlord obtained possession through Vakil Commissioner. It has also been alleged that in order to harass the landlord, the petitioner through his two sons, filed suit no. 179 of 1984 in the Court of City Munsif, Varanasi on false and frivolous grounds and had been harassing the landlord. The deponent Raman Lal Goel further stated that the respondent no. 3 Bechan Lal was so much harassed by the petitioner that he was ready to sell the entire share of the house and entered into an agreement for sale with one Om Prakash, who later on resiled from the agreement and did not purchass the house. It was then stated that there was settlement for sale with the deponent and Bechan Lal who had received the possession of the shop and rest of the portion of the house, though in a dilapidated condition. Since the entire house was in possession of the respondent Bechan Lal, so the deponent purchased through sale deed for Rs. 70,000/- and got possession over the house, para-'9' of the counter affidavit is being quoted below ; "9. That thereafter there was settlement for sale with the deponent and Sri Bechan the opposite party who has already got possession of the shop and the rest portion of the house, though in a dilapidated condition, and since the entire house was in possession of the opposite party Bechan so the deponent purchased through sale deed for Rs, 70,000/- and got possession over the house." 9. It has been further alleged that thereafter he obtained permission from the Corporation for repairs and modification of the building as it was in dilapidated condition end necessary reparis have also been done and he is in possession of the entire house to the extent of the share of Vendor Bechan, in pursuance of the sale deed. 10. It has been further alleged that thereafter he obtained permission from the Corporation for repairs and modification of the building as it was in dilapidated condition end necessary reparis have also been done and he is in possession of the entire house to the extent of the share of Vendor Bechan, in pursuance of the sale deed. 10. In the back ground of the aforesaid facts it has to be seen as to whether after the building was, released in favour of the landlord on the basis of his genuine need i.e. to settle his son, in hosiery business, in case by the subsequent events it is established that instead of settling his son in business he had sold the property to a third person whether release in his favour should be allowed to continue or the tenant may exercise his option for re entry in accordance with the provisions of section 21 proviso to sub-section (5) and section 24 of the Act. In the present case the writ petition challenging the orders of release was pending before this Court when the aforesaid transactions took place and the petitioner impleaded the subsequent purchasers also in the writ petition. Normally, in case the option is exercised by the tenant for re entry under provisions of section 24 of the Act he may take resort to the procedure as contemplated under section 24 (1) of the Act. Since the writ petition is pending and during the pendency of the writ petition itself the transfer of property had taken place even though the respondent no. 3 had full knowledge of the same as also the subsequent purchasers who had been impleaded as parties to the petition and had filed their counter affidavit, I do not think it proper to relegate the petitioner to take recourse to the procedure as provided under section 24 (1) of the Act and to apply for the re-entry to the prescribed authority. 11. Provisions of section 21 (5) and proviso to sub-clause (5) are quoted below : "(5) On an order being made under sub-section (1) or sub section (1-A) or sub section (2) the building or part or appurtenant land, as the case may be, shall stand released in favour of the landlord. 11. Provisions of section 21 (5) and proviso to sub-clause (5) are quoted below : "(5) On an order being made under sub-section (1) or sub section (1-A) or sub section (2) the building or part or appurtenant land, as the case may be, shall stand released in favour of the landlord. Provided that on the occurrence of any of the circumstances mentioned in section 24, any building or part thereof (but not appurtenant land alone) released as above shall, without prejudice to the provisions of section 24 be deemed to become again subject to allotment in accordance with Chapter- Ill". The proviso contemplates that building shall, without prejudice to the provisions of section 24 of the Act, be deemed to become again subject to allotment in accordance with Chapter-Ill. The provisions of section 24 provides for option of re-entry by the tenant which is being quoted below ; "24. The proviso contemplates that building shall, without prejudice to the provisions of section 24 of the Act, be deemed to become again subject to allotment in accordance with Chapter-Ill. The provisions of section 24 provides for option of re-entry by the tenant which is being quoted below ; "24. Option of re-entry by tenant (1) where a building is released in favour of the landlord and the tenant is evicted under section 21 or on appeal under section 22, and the landlord either puts or causes to be put into occupation thereof any person different from the person for whose occupation according to the landlord's representation, the building was required, or permits any such person to occupy it, or otherwise puts it to any use other than the one for which it was released, or as the case may be, omits to occupy it within one month of such extended period as the prescribed authority may for sufficient cause allow from the date of his obtaining possession or, in the case a building which was proposed to be occupied after some construction or reconstruction, from the date of completion thereof, or in the case of a building which was proposed to be demolished, omits to demolish it within two months or such extended period as the prescribed authority may for sufficient cause allow from the date of his obtaining possession, then the prescribed authority or, as the case may be, the District Judge, may on an application in that behalf within three months from the date of such act or omission, order the landlord to place the evicted tenant in occupation of tie building on the original terms and conditions and on such order being made, the landlord and any person who may be in occupation thereof shall give vacant possession of the building to the said tenant, failing which, the prescribed authority shall put him into possession and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary. In my opinion the procedure provided under section 24 of the Act clearly postulate that in such a circumstances the tenant has a right of re-entry and he would be entitled to possession .liable to be provided in the present case as well when the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution are pending before this court, challenging the orders of release. 12. 12. Subsequent transferees ha/re not brought on record any material to establish their own bonafide and genuine need- Moreover on the basis of bonafide and genuine need of the previous landlord the subsequent transferees can not be allowed to take advantage of the release order under section 21, made in favour of the previous landlord. Under the provisions of section 21 of the Act the building is released in favour of landlord on his bonafide requirement either for occupation of the landlord himself or for any member of his family and this release of the building on the aforesaid basis would not enure in favour of any subsequent transferee. In my opinion the release of the premises is based on the bonafide and genuine need of the landlord which could subsist only for the advantage of the landlord and this bonafide need can not be treated to be transferred in favour of subsequent transferees. 13. For the aforesaid reasons the subsequent purchaser Raman Lal Goel, who has also been impleaded as respondent in the present petition, can not be treated to be landlord in whose favour disputed accommodation was released in pursuance of the impugned orders. The petitioner had a right of re-entry in these circumstances. The writ petition is liable to succeed and is allowed. The petitioner would be entitled to be delivered possession of the disputed premises. The prescribed authority as also the subsequent purchaser Raman Lal Goel are directed to initiate proceedings to hand over the possession of the disputed shop to the petitioner within three months of a certified copy of this order being served on him. Petition allowed.