JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of the present writ petition are as follows :- (i) Gulab Chand was the landlord of shop No. 91/1 Mohalla-Sarai Pura, District-Jhansi and had three sons namely Ashok Kumar, Arun Kumar and Dr. Rakesh Kumar, Gulab Chand the landlord was carrying on a medical store in another shop in the. name and style of Shah Medical Agencies. He applies for release of the shop No. 91/1 situate at Mohalla Sarai Pura, District-Jhansi under section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Ace) of which Sri Mangan Lal (since deceased), respondent No. 3 was the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 90/ - per month, for the need of his son Ashok Kumar to establish him in a wholesale medicine business, with the allegations that Ashok Kumar has obtained drug licence for wholesale dealing in medicines and is presently carrying on the said business from the house. The said application was contested by the tenant/respondent No.3 on the pleas inter alia that he is carrying on business of hair cut i.e., running barber shop in the disputed shop and the shop in question is the only source of income of his family. The said business is being run with the help of two servants. It was further pleaded that Ashok Kumar can carry on the wholesale medicine business from the shop where from the landlord is carrying on the business of medicine in retail i.e., at the business premises of Shah Medical Agencies. (ii) Parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The pre-: scribed authority by its judgment and order dated 30th October, 1986 found that the landlord does not posses any other shop except, the disputed one and that Ashok Kumar is carrying in the business from his residence which is not suitable. To establish Ashok Kumar in a separate business is a bona fide need of the landlord. On the question of comparative hardship it was found that the tenant has not taken any steps to obtain an alternative shop during pendency of the release proceedings therefore, the finding of comparative hardship was recorded against him. To establish Ashok Kumar in a separate business is a bona fide need of the landlord. On the question of comparative hardship it was found that the tenant has not taken any steps to obtain an alternative shop during pendency of the release proceedings therefore, the finding of comparative hardship was recorded against him. It was held that Ashok Kumar has obtained licence of wholesale medicine business in the name and style of M/s. Jain Medical Agencies which has been renewed, and the need of the disputed shop is bona fide and genuine. It is further found that if the disputed shop is not released, the licence granted to Ashok Kumar to run medical business, will be terminated. A sum of Rs. 2,170/-, as damages which is equivalent to two years rent, as provided under the said Act was awarded. The said order was carried in appeal being Rent Control Appeal No. 11 of 1985 by the tenant Mangan Lal Sen. The said appeal has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 22nd February, 1988 by the learned District Judge, Lalitpur. Challenging the said order the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned District Judge has found that the respondent-landlord possesses a house in Katra Bazar wherein the wholesale business in medicines itself has been started by Ashok Kumar from the said house. There being no cogent evidence on record to show that this house of the landlord is not in the market or is away from the market and the fact that it is situate in Katra Bazar, the said house is not unsuitable for the wholesale business in medicines. The Appellate Court thereafter proceeded to examine the question of comparative hardship. It found that landlord is carrying of a business of selling medicine in the name and style of Shah Medical Agencies from his another shop situate in the market in which the shop in question is situate would not suffer greater hardship in case the release application is rejected as he has some rental income also. On the other hand there is no cogent evidence on record to show that the tenant has any alternative accommodation for running his business of barber. Except the said business the tenant has no other source of livelihood. 4. On the other hand there is no cogent evidence on record to show that the tenant has any alternative accommodation for running his business of barber. Except the said business the tenant has no other source of livelihood. 4. It may also be noticed that this writ petition has been pending in this Court for last more then two decades. During this period the landlord and the tenant both have passed away. The learned Counsel for the respondent-tenant submits that the said subsequent events may be taken note of and the shop in which the petitioner was carrying on the medicine business in retail in the name of Shah Medical can now be occupied by Ashok Kumar, if his need still exists. The learned Counsel for the landlord on the other hand submits that after the death of the tenant, the sons of the tenant are not carrying on any business therefrom and have sub-letted it to another person. Along with supplementary rejoinder affidavit, a copy of registration under the Shop and Commercial Establishment Act in respect of another shop situate at Kaila Road, Lalitpur has been filed to show that Mukesh Kumar Sen son of the tenant is running a tractor repairing workshop therein. In addition to above, certain other documents have also been filed, amongst them, a list of the shops which are lying vacant for allotment at Dr. Shadilal Commercial Complex, Lalitpur as also an advertisement issued by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Lalitpur inviting applications for the allotment and sale of the said shops published in Amar Ujala, daily newspaper dated 3rd March, 2009. 5. Considered respective submissions of the Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. So far as the question of need of the landlord to establish his son Ashok Kumar in a wholesale medicine business is concerned, a careful reading of the impugned judgment of the District Judge would show that even the learned District Judge has not found that Ashok Kumar is either not dealing in the said wholesale medicine business or he is engaged or employed otherwise in any manner. The pith and substance of the judgment of the learned District Judge is that Ashok Kumar who is carrying on the business of wholesale medicines in the name and style of M/s. Jain Medicals can continue to carry out the said business from his house. The pith and substance of the judgment of the learned District Judge is that Ashok Kumar who is carrying on the business of wholesale medicines in the name and style of M/s. Jain Medicals can continue to carry out the said business from his house. In other words, the Appellate Court advices the landlord to convert the residential accommodation into a commercial one so as to accommodate the tenant in the disputed shop. Obviously the said approach of the Appellate Court is illegal and untenable. It is no bodies case that Ashok Kumar is not carrying on the wholesale medicines business under the name and style of Jain Medical. It is also no bodies case that he is carrying on the said business from any shop. The plea that he can carry out the same business from the shop wherein his father has carried out the business of medicines in retail was rejected specifically by the prescribed authority. The said finding has not been in any manner reversed or disapproved by the Appellate Court. It is an acknowledge legal position that need to establish a son in a business is a bona fide need, and a tenant cannot dictate to the landlord as to how else he should manage his affairs. It is crystal clear that the landlord has no other shop except the disputed one to establish his son Ashok Kumar. This being so, the finding recorded by the Appellate Court, holding that the need of the landlord can be met by carrying on the said business from the residence is illegal and the same is hereby reversed. 7. So far as comparative hardship is concerned, it may be noticed that already two decades have passed away but the tenant has not taken any steps to take another accommodation on rent. As held by the Apex Court in the case of - Mst. Bega Bugum v. Abdul Abbas Khan 1 AIR 1977 SC 272 the question of comparative hardship, it is held that it is the landlord who will suffer greater hardship in case the release application is rejected. The finding of the Appellate Court, contrary to above, being illegal, is set aside. 8. Bega Bugum v. Abdul Abbas Khan 1 AIR 1977 SC 272 the question of comparative hardship, it is held that it is the landlord who will suffer greater hardship in case the release application is rejected. The finding of the Appellate Court, contrary to above, being illegal, is set aside. 8. Now the point for consideration is the effect of the subsequent events i.e., the death of the landlord and the tenant during the pendency of the present writ petition as is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the parties. 9. The learned Counsel for the tenant respondent submits two points. Firstly, the shop wherein the business for selling medicine in retail was carried on by the landlord in the name of Shah Mecacal, on account of death of landlord-petitioner, is available wherein Ashok Kumar can be accommodated and secondly, during the pendency of the present writ petition, the heirs of the landlord have sold away another tenanted property and have purchased in lieu thereof one shop, therefore, the need of the landlord has vanished. In contra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-landlord submits that the landlord had three sons Ashok Kumar, Arun Kumar and Dr. Rakesh Kumar. Unfortunately, Arun Kumar one of the sons has expired untimely and he has left his widow and grand son. The grand son of the landlord is carrying on the business of retail selling of medicines in the shop known as Shah Medical, therefore, the said shops is not available to Ashok Kumar and Ashok Kumar is still doing the business from the residence. So far as the sale and purchase of shop is concerned the said fact is not disputed, but it has been stated that the said shop has been given to Dr. Rakesh Kumar one of the sons of the deceased landlord. Therefore, the said shop is not available. 10. It is evident from the counter-affidavit of Rajesh (one of the sons of the deceased-tenant) that Ashok Kumar, who has obtained license in the name of M/ s. Jain Medical Agencies is carrying on his business from the house in his possession situate in Katra Bazar, and the said house is absolutely suitable for the wholesale business of the medicines. It is evident from the counter-affidavit of Rajesh (one of the sons of the deceased-tenant) that Ashok Kumar, who has obtained license in the name of M/ s. Jain Medical Agencies is carrying on his business from the house in his possession situate in Katra Bazar, and the said house is absolutely suitable for the wholesale business of the medicines. In paragraph 18 of the said affidavit it has been stated that "the petitioner has no bona fide need to get vacated the shop in dispute as the petitioner's son Ashok Kumar is already carrying on his business from his house situate in Katra Bazar". The said averment shows that Ashok Kumar is still carrying on the business from his house and situate at Katra Bazar. 11. Another supplementary counter-affidavit of the same deponent dated 30th March, 2009 has been filed in which it has been stated that Ashok Kumar was jointly doing business with the petitioner (deceased landlord) in the name of M/s. Shah Medical Agencies situate in main market. Further it has been stated that Ashok Kumar has also obtained drug licence for doing wholesale business of medicines in the name of Jain Medical Agencies from the house situate at Katra Bazar, vide para 3 thereof. Thus it is established that Ashok Kumar is carrying on the business of whole sale of medicines from the house situate at Katra Bazar. So far as the plea that Ashok Kumar is jointly doing the business is concerned, the same Cannot be accepted as it has been raised for the first time in the present affidavit. It was not found so even by either of the two Courts below. The case of the tenant on the other hand was that Ashok Kumar can carry on his business from the house situate at Katra Bazar. The learned Counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that the business left by the petitioner was succeeded by Arun Kumar and after his death by the son of Arun Kumar. In the absence of any countering material, it is accepted. It may be noticed that the tenant-respondent has no where stated either in the counter-affidavit or in the supplementary counter-affidavit, and it was not shown to this Court that Ashok Kumar after the death of the petitioner is carrying on the business of retail medicines at Shah Medical. 12. In the absence of any countering material, it is accepted. It may be noticed that the tenant-respondent has no where stated either in the counter-affidavit or in the supplementary counter-affidavit, and it was not shown to this Court that Ashok Kumar after the death of the petitioner is carrying on the business of retail medicines at Shah Medical. 12. So far as the question of sale and purchase of a shop is concerned, it has got no substance. The said sale deed has been executed by all the three sons of late Sri Gulab Chand in respect of old shop No. 91/2 (new No. 103/2) situate at Mohalla Sarai Pura, Shahi Road, Lalitpur. Preamble of the sale deed shows that the said property was under the tenancy of Sukh Lal Ramesh Chand Jain, its release was sought for to establish Dr. Rakesh Kumar and the matter was pending in the Court. Dr. Rakesh Kumar, other son of the deceased-landlord was himself a tenant in another shop. The landlord of the said shop was pressurizing for its vacation. Therefore, it was decided to sell off the said shop to Rakesh Chand Jain etc. for a sum of Rs. 2,90,000/- and from the sale consideration a shop was purchased for Dr. Rakesh Kumar. Both the transactions took place simultaneously on the same day i.e., 26th October, 1996. Without entering into controversy as to whether the subsequent events can or cannot be taken into consideration, even if they are taken into consideration there is no addition of accommodation at the hands of the heirs of the deceased-landlord. This was also not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondents. 13. In view of the above discussions this Court finds that the subsequent events if taken into consideration will not in any manner change the complexion of the case. 14. At this stage the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following cases :- (i) Purushottam Das v. VIIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge,1 AIR 1977 SC 1520 in which it has been held in view of the proviso to section 21 it is obligatory to the prescribed authority and the Appellate Court to take into account the comparative hardship of the landlord and the tenant and to have regard to such factors as may be prescribed by the rules. The said case has no relevance as it was not argued nor held that question of comparative hardship is not a relevant question to be taken into consideration. It has been given due consideration by the two Courts below as well as by this Court also. - (ii) Sudha Agarwal v. Xth Additional District Judge 2 1999 (37) ALR 110 (SC) is not at all attracted to the facts of the present case inasmuch as, entirely different controversy with regard to Proviso 4, explanation (I) to section 21 (1) of the Act was involved therein. (iii) Ashok Kumar and another v. Sita Ram 3 2001 (43) ALR 783 (SC) is an authority for the proposition that High Court has not justification to interfere with the order in exercise of its writ jurisdiction where the order passed by statutory authority did not suffer from any serious illegality or it cannot be said to have been taken a view of the matter which no reasonable person was likely to take on the facts of that case, the judgment of the High Court was set aside by the Supreme Court. But this authority is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the Appellate Court has committed serious illegality in holding that the need of the landlord to establish his son in a business where the landlord admittedly has got no other shop is not bona fide. The finding recorded by the Appellate Court being perverse and against the material on record, the said finding can be corrected while exercising writ jurisdiction. (iv) In Sushila v. IInd Additional District Judge, 4 2003 (52) ALR 160 (SC) it has been held by the Apex Court that even though the period of tenancy of a tenant may be no doubt long but availability of another shop to him where he can very well shift his business, irrespective of the length of tenancy of the accommodation in dispute, the need of a landlord to establish her son in a business, is a bona fide need. In the case on hand, there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner or after his death his heirs have taken any steps to obtain an alternative suitable accommodation, on the other hand, there is some evidence to show that one of the son's of the tenant is carrying on tractor repairing work from a different shop, already referred above. A list of new shops open for auction and allotment by Nagar Palika Parishad, Lalitpur as per advertisement notice dated 23rd October, 2009 has been filed. It shows that number of shops have been reserved for scheduled caste, backward class and ex-army personals. (v) Lastly, reliance was placed on Prabha Arora v. Brij Mohini 1 AIR 2008 SC 643 wherein it has been held that the landlord, a retired teacher getting meager pension wants an accommodation to open tutorial center is created and pressed in respect of the property in question, the need for eviction of tenant has totally disappeared, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The need of landlord to establish Ashok Kumar still subsists, as found above. 15. In view of above discussions, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances and submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the impugned judgment and order of the Appellate Court cannot be sustained. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Court below is set aside and the judgment of the prescribed authority releasing the disputed accommodation is restored. 16. However, as prayed time up to 31st August, 2009, to vacate the disputed shop is granted to the heirs of the deceased-tenant provided they file an undertaking on affidavit before the prescribed authority within a period of one month that they will vacate and handover its peaceful possession of the disputed shop to the heirs of the deceased-landlord on or before 31st August, 2009. They shall also deposit the arrears of rent if any and the damages @ Rs.1,000/- per month for the period April, 2009 to August, 2009 within the aforesaid period of one month before the prescribed authority. In case of default of either of the conditions stipulated above the time granted by this Court shall stand vacated and it shall be open to the petitioner-landlord to apply for the execution of the release order. Petition Allowed.