JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 15.7.1996 passed by IInd Additional District Judge Saharanpur allowing the Appeal preferred on behalf of Smt. Sudharshan Devi respondent No. 3 and others under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 2. Brief background of the case is that an application was moved under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 requiring the shop in question for expending the business for benefit of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 4. After said release application was filed an application for amendment was also moved that need has much more increased after filing of the said application. Written statement was filed on behalf of respondents. Affidavit of Sardar Gurucharan Singh husband of petitioner No. 4, affidavit of Smt. Rajendra Kaur wife of petitioner No. 3 and two more affidavits were filed one of Harbinder Singh and other of Sudhir Kumar. Report of Vakil Commissioner dated 9.9.1993 was also brought on record. Shop in question was directed to be released. Aggrieved by aforesaid order respondents preferred Appeal and said Appeal in question has been allowed by holding that application itself was not maintainable. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. 3. Pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged and thereafter matter has been taken up final hearing and disposal. 4. Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended with vehemence that in the present case appellate Court has totally misdirected itself in passing the order impugned whereas respondents themselves admitted that premises in question is shop and while depositing amount under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 it was clearly and specifically described as shop as such view taken is incorrect view consequently writ petition deserves to be allowed. 5. From the side of respondents, in spite of matter is being taken up in the revised list, no one is present. 6. 5. From the side of respondents, in spite of matter is being taken up in the revised list, no one is present. 6. Factual position which is emerging in the present case is that respondents had been occupying a part from the present accommodation first floor of the accommodation in question also and qua the same separate, proceedings were undertaken under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and same was ultimately allowed and the orders were passed for releasing of the premises in question situated at first floor where persons were residing on 4.11.2004. Against the said order passed writ petition No. 50677 of 2004 has been filed and said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 18.2.2005. Petitioners claim that possession of first floor has been handed over which was exclusively meant for residential purpose. This particular premises in question which is subject matter of dispute, as per the tenants was being used by respondents for parking their scooter, and was store of Transport Company. Release application has been moved and same has been allowed after recording finding on both Courts i.e. on the question of bona fide need and of comparative hardship. Appellate Authority has proceeded to allow the Appeal by mentioning that premises in question was not shop as such application in term of Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, Third provision clause (ii) (a) was not liable to be entertained as said premises for residential purpose cannot be occupied for business purpose. Appellate Court has proceeded to mention that as it was residential building as such release for business purpose cannot be allowed. Appellate Authority has further proceeded to mention that need has been set up for married daughter and she does not fall within the definition of family, as such for her accommodation in question cannot be released. 7. Now both the aspect of the matter are being dealt with. Firstly appellate Court failed to consider that records of proceedings under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (Annexure XI) which had been filed by tenant themselves therein in Misc. 7. Now both the aspect of the matter are being dealt with. Firstly appellate Court failed to consider that records of proceedings under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (Annexure XI) which had been filed by tenant themselves therein in Misc. Case No. 144 of 1988 respondent No. 6 has described the accommodation in question as shop with No. 2/370/5 and further boundaries of shop was also given by mentioning that on the northern side of the shop, shop No. 2/370/4 is situated and on the southern side house of Swaroop Singh and on eastern side Gurudwara Road and on western side house of the owner is there. Thus, admitted case of respondent has been that it was shop in question then in this background it was wholly unfair on the part of the Appellate Court to ignore this important aspect of the matter and take altogether different view qua admitted position which was supported from the record. Parties cannot be permitted to change their stand subject to their convenience. View of appellate Court on this aspect of the matter cannot be subscribed. 8. Now coming to the second question as to whether application for release was maintainable or not. Admittedly petitioner is widow with no son, and only five daughters. Petitioner No. 1 submits that after her husbands death Smt. Baljahat Kaur alongwith her family has shifted to petitioner residence, and petitioner No. 1 is totally dependent on petitioner No. 4 and income of their could be augmented if business of husband of respondent No. 4 increases. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.V. Muthu v. Ammal, AIR 1997 SC 628 has taken the view that need of nephew who is brought up like a son is also included in the need of landlord. Said judgment has been followed in the case of Mohd.Ali v. IX ADJ, 2006 (1) ACJ 347 wherein release for widowed sisters son has been approved. Said judgment has been followed in the case of Mohd.Ali v. IX ADJ, 2006 (1) ACJ 347 wherein release for widowed sisters son has been approved. Petitioner No. 1 had clearly disclosed that she was widow with no one to support and after her husband’s death alongwith her all the daughters she became co-landlord, and she had no source of income, and her daughter staying at Saharanpur has shifted with her entire family with the petitioner and in this background she could augment her income through the husband of one of the co-sharers, who after her husband’s death has shifted with her. Petitioner No. 1 thus, clearly disclosed that it was her need to augment the income and husband of her daughter was merely a means to achieve the said goal. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Joginder Pal v. Nawal Kishore Behl, AIR 2002 SC 2256 , has construed the expression “for his own use” in context of bona fide need and taken the view that said words should receive wide liberal and useful meaning and same should not be confined to actual physical user by the landlord only. Same will depend on various factors such as inter-relationship and inter dependence. Text has also been prescribed (i) whether the requirement pleaded and proved may properly be regarded as the landlords own requirement (ii) whether in the facts of case, actual occupation and user by a person other than the landlord would be deemed to be his own occupation or user. Answer in its turn, would depend on (i) nature and degree of relationship/or dependence between the landlord pleading the requirement of his own and the person who would actually use the premises (iii) the circumstances under which claim arises and put forward (iv) intrinsic tenability of claim. The Court on being satisfied of reasonably and genuineness of claim as distinguished from a mere ruse to get rid of the claim will uphold landlords claim. Court will have to adopt practical and meaningful approach guided by realities of life. Tested on parameters as set out, as already discussed above, application for release was fully competent and maintainable. 10. Consequently present writ petition is allowed. Court will have to adopt practical and meaningful approach guided by realities of life. Tested on parameters as set out, as already discussed above, application for release was fully competent and maintainable. 10. Consequently present writ petition is allowed. Respondents are granted time to vacate the premises in question within six months from today and hand over peaceful possession to the petitioners subject to the condition that undertaking is furnished within one month before Prescribed Authority that peacefully possession would be handed over. In the event of failure to furnish undertaking interim protection accorded shall come to an end. ————