JUDGMENT : - A.K. Yog, J. By means of the present petition under Article 226, Constitution of India petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing judgments and orders of respondent No. 1 dated 27-10-1980 (Annexure 6) and judgment and orders of respondent No. 2 dated 7-7-1980 (Annexure 4) and dated 15-7-1980 (Annexure 5) respectively- 2. PETITIONER, Shakuntala Devi, who alleges herself to be the landlady of house in dispute, bearing No. 9/494/2 situate in Mohalla Dinanath Patvi Ki Kuan, Saharanpur, consisting of one room and one kitchen and prays that this Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari to quash aforesaid judgments and orders. The aforesaid house, called the house in question, had fallen vacant on 15th July, 1979 when the erstwhile tenant left the same. Vacancy was notified and the Delegated Authority initiated proceedings under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short called 'the Act.' The landlady filed application dated 25t-7-1978 (Annexure 4) for release, petitioner also filed affidavit in support of her] case that she required the house in question bonafide. The case of the petitioner was that she had four sons and one daughter. Two sons are already married, third son was going to be married shortly. Certain persons also made applications seeking allotment of the house in question. 3. THE Delegated Authority dismissed the release application and also passed an allotment order. Both the orders were challenged by filing revisions under Section 18 oil the Act. Both the revisions were rejected by a Composite order dated 27th October, 1980 (Annexure 6). 4. IN the: Writ Petition an interim order was parsed and possession of the petitioner was protected. IN paragraph 17 of the Writ Petition it was categorically pleaded that petitioner was in possession of the house in question. Said paragraph 17 of the Writ Petition has been replied by Gulshanrai Jain, respondent No. 3 vide paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit. There is no denial, whatsoever, about the petitioner being in possession of the house in question. I have perused the impugned judgment and orders (Annexure 5 and 4) passed by the Delegated Authority. 5. PERUSAL of the impugned order shows that tie Court below did not appreciate the need of the landlady with' pragmatic approach. There is no denial, whatsoever, about the petitioner being in possession of the house in question. I have perused the impugned judgment and orders (Annexure 5 and 4) passed by the Delegated Authority. 5. PERUSAL of the impugned order shows that tie Court below did not appreciate the need of the landlady with' pragmatic approach. The Court below erred in law is having failed to take note of the fact that son of the landlady was going to be married and who was actually married subsequently. Apart from it the fact that considerable time has passed since the release application was filed in July, 1978. Things must have changed drastically. In view of the above Writ Petition deserved to be allowed, impugned orders (Annexures 4, 5 and 6) deserve to be set aside. The release application of the landlady will be determined on the basis of new facts, which may be brought by the petitioner before the Delegated Authority who shall decide the matter afresh by taking into account evidence which may be filed before it in accordance with law. Petition allowed.