Judgment A.K. Yog, J. (1) This petition has been filed by Smt. Bela Devi and others (legal representatives/ successor-in-interest) or original tenant one Chhotey Lal of the disputes premises a shop in their tenancy at the rate of Rs. 18.75 per month. (2) Release application (P.A Case No. 20 of 1980) was filed under Section 21(1)(a), U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, for short called the Act, alleging personal need of the landlord (Annexure-I to the writ petition). Aforesaid Chhotey Lal filed written statement (Annexure-II to the writ petition). (3) Parties led evidence and considering the same, Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 20.4.1982 (Annexure-V to the writ petition). (4) Rent Appeal No. 81 of 1982 was filed by the tenant, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 17.8.1987 (Annexure-VI to the writ petition). The tenant being aggrieved filed present petition. At the admission stage this Court passed an interim order directing that the Petitioners shall not be evicted from the shop in question. Shri A.K. Gupta, Advocate had put in appearance on behalf of Ram Govind, contesting respondent No. 2 landlord and on his re quest time was granted for filing counter affidavit. Petitioners were also granted time to file Rejoinder Affidavit. (5) Copy of the counter affidavit filed by Ram Govind, respondent No. 2 was served on the counsel for the petitioners in November, 1988, but no counter affidavit has been filed as yet. (6) During the pendency of the writ petition applicant-proposed respondents filed Miscellaneous Application No. 29997 of 2000 purported to be under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure read with Chapter XXII Rule 5, Rules of the Court contending that Ram Govind/respondent No. 2 had soled the property to Shyam Babu and Rajesh (son of Lalji resident of Alamganj, Posthaveli, Tehsil and District Jaunpur) vide registered sale-deed dated 27.7.1997 true copy filed as Annexure-I to the affidavit filed in support of the said application. Simultaneously, another Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 13912 of 2000 purported to be under Chapter XX, Rule 5, Rule of the Court has been filed along with a Supplementary Affidavit (sic) Annexure SA-1) indicating that Ram Govind had sold the disputed shop as indicated above. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. No one appears on behalf of the respondents. Simultaneously, another Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 13912 of 2000 purported to be under Chapter XX, Rule 5, Rule of the Court has been filed along with a Supplementary Affidavit (sic) Annexure SA-1) indicating that Ram Govind had sold the disputed shop as indicated above. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. No one appears on behalf of the respondents. (7) The shop having been sold during the pendency of the petition general principle of lis pendence is attracted and consequently the transfer during litigation is to be ignored. This approach is also war ranted in order to avoid unnecessary delay. Accordingly, I find that Application No. 29997 of 2000, under Order 1, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure is misconceived and, accordingly, rejected. Any judgment passed in this writ petition will be binding on subsequent purchaser. (8) There is no counter to the Application No. 13912 of 2000 denying factum of sale and even genuineness of the sale-deed nor execution of the same has been disputed. Hence, facts stated in the Supplementary Affidavit arc admitted. In view of unrebutted facts that Ram Govind had sold property by means of the registered sale-deed, as stated above, the release application cannot survive and, accordingly, impugned appellate judgment and order dated 17.8.1987 (Annexure-VI to the writ petition) cannot be sustained. Accordingly, impugned judgment and order dated 17.8.1987 is set aside and order dated 20.4.1982 (Annexure-V to the writ petition) is affirmed. (9) Writ petition stands allowed subject to the observations made above. (10) There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.