JUDGMENT Honble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.—Vakalatnama filed by Sri G.K. Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 2 is taken on record. 2. The writ petition is taken up in the revised list. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. The writ petition is being decided finally at the stage of admission itself. 3. Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.K. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. 4. The writ petition arises out of proceedings initiated at the instance of the landlord under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The premises CK 52/21 Raja Darwaja, Varanasi, is a three storied building. There are three shops on the ground floor. One of the three shops is in the tenancy of the petitioner. Initially, the rent was Rs. 53.75 paise per month. Subsequently, rent was enhanced to Rs. 70/- per month w.e.f. 1.6.1985. The tenant continues to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month for the shop in question till date. 5. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are actual owners. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are sons and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are daughters of Bharat Prasad. An application under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act was moved for release of shop in question setting up the need of his son Ramesh Kumar, respondent No. 2, who was 42 years of age at the time of filing of the writ petition and that he met with an accident, his left leg was injured, therefore, father needed the shop bonafidely for the handicapped son. The release application was supported by an affidavit of Ramesh Kumar, respondent No. 2 himself and case was registered as P.A. Case No. 105 of 1989, Bharat Prasad and others v. Krishna Prasad. 6. The petitioner filed his written statement/objection denying the need of Ramesh Kumar. The objection raised by the petitioner/tenant was that respondent No. 2 is now cured and almost normal but for slight limp, which could be deciphered while walking. The claim of the landlord that respondent No. 2 was a disabled person and cannot run big shop of stainless steel utensils in Thatheri Bazar, is a false assertion. The said shop is admittedly run by the landlord and his son. The claim of the landlord that respondent No. 2 was a disabled person and cannot run big shop of stainless steel utensils in Thatheri Bazar, is a false assertion. The said shop is admittedly run by the landlord and his son. A fabricated ground is set up with a view to get the shop in question released and earn heavy premium. 7. The petitioner asserted that one of the shops of the building CK 52/21 Raja Darwaja, Varanasi was in tenancy of one S.K. Gupta, who was running business of general merchandise and paying rent of Rs. 150/- per month. He had vacated the shop in question and after coming in possession of the vacant shop, the landlord let it out to one Shree Devi Rastogi in the year 1985-86 on rent of Rs. 400/- per month. He realized heavy premium from Shree Devi Rastogi. She started readymade garment business in the said shop. 8. Second ground for release of the shop was that the petitioner had purchased some land within the municipal limit of Varanasi and had constructed two rooms and, therefore, explanation to Section 21 (1) was attracted and he had no right to object the release of the shop in question. 9. The Prescribed Authority by its order dated 2.12.1992 rejected the release application. Thereafter, a rent appeal No. 8 of 1993 was preferred by the landlord/respondents under Section 22 of the Act in the Court of the District Judge, Varanasi, which stood transferred to the Court of IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi. The appellate Court allowed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 30.3.1996 holding that the conclusion arrived at by the Prescribed Authority is against settled principles specially regarding bonafide need and also did not agree with the finding that comparative hardship was to be compared only in the event the landlord’s need is held to be bonafide. The appellate Court was of the view that the Prescribed Authority erred in law in taking into consideration the goodwill of the tenant for the reason that he was running his business in the shop in question since last 40 years. The appellate Court was of the view that the Prescribed Authority erred in law in taking into consideration the goodwill of the tenant for the reason that he was running his business in the shop in question since last 40 years. The order of the appellate Court has been challenged on a number of grounds before this Court as well as certain subsequent events are brought to my notice by means of affidavit dated 26.11.2002, which has not been denied and no counter affidavit has been filed to the said affidavit. 10. Submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the lower appellate Court was led away by the fact that the petitioner has constructed two rooms but failed to notice that it was a residential house and, therefore, explanation to Section 21 (1) of the Act, could not apply in the present case. 11. So far the question of employment of Ramesh Kumar, respondent No. 2, the Court below has erred and the findings are not sustainable. The need of the landlord cannot be accepted. It is apparent that the conclusion arrived at by the appellate Court holding the need to be genuine and bonafide is without any basis. It is contended before this Court that finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority that respondent No. 2 was already running stainless steel utensils shop on a large scale, has not been set aside. Besides, the appellate Court failed to take into consideration that the landlord had let out the vacant shop to Shree Devi Rastogi and there are two other vacant shops, which are available to the landlord. These questions have been completely sidetracked by saying that in the event the landlord requires shop for augmenting his income, will be deemed to be bonafide. This was not the case of the landlord on the contrary it was only for the need of his son, who met with an accident and had slight injury on his left leg. The lower appellate Court also failed to take into consideration that respondent No. 2 had sustained injury on his left leg in the year 1970 but till the time when release application was filed, his specific requirement was not in existence. The lower appellate Court also failed to take into consideration that respondent No. 2 had sustained injury on his left leg in the year 1970 but till the time when release application was filed, his specific requirement was not in existence. The impugned judgment has also been challenged being in violation of provision of Rule 16 (2) framed under the Act and that the lower appellate Court was led away completely by irrelevant consideration. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has greatly emphasized on the supplementary affidavit dated 28.7.2008, where in paragraph 7 it has been mentioned that Ramesh Kumar, who was running shop of stainless steel utensils in Thatheri Bazar, has vacated the shop in question after taking huge amount of premium after the death of his father, Bharat Prasad in the year 2007, he has taken over his business of Sarafa situated at Hastkala Peetal Udyog Sahkari Samiti. Thus the need, if any, for Ramesh Kumar, which was the sole ground for release, stands completely extinguished. 13. It has also been brought to my notice in paragraph 5 of the said affidavit that the petitioner has paid rent up to date at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month by way of money order since the rent is not being accepted by the landlord. True copy of the money order receipts are annexed as Annexure SA-1. 14. I have examined the entire record and carefully considered arguments of the counsels for the respective parties and I find force in the submission made by the Counsel appearing for the petitioner especially the fact that need set up for handicapped son is no more in existence and the shop which he was running admittedly, has now been let out to another tenant. This subsequent event has to be taken into consideration. This Court, in the case of Parma Nand v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Aligarh and others, 2006 (3) AWC 2532 , held that passage of 25 years since filing of the release application and also no reply to the supplementary affidavit by the tenant/petitioner bringing on record new facts, the Court had no other option but to set aside the release order. However, rate of rent was enhanced in the said case. The Apex Court had also taken a similar view in the case of K.N. Agrawal v. Dharanji Devi, 2004 (2) ARC 764 (SC). 15. However, rate of rent was enhanced in the said case. The Apex Court had also taken a similar view in the case of K.N. Agrawal v. Dharanji Devi, 2004 (2) ARC 764 (SC). 15. In the instant case, these subsequent developments have material bearing on the question involved and, therefore, it will certainly effect outcome of the case especially when proceedings are pending since a very long time. No doubt, the Apex Court has given a note of caution while accepting the subsequent events which should not be done in routine manner in the case of Lekh Raj v. Munni Lal and others, 2001 (2) SCC 762 . 16. In the instant case, release application was filed in the year 1989 on the ground that the son had met with an accident in the year 1970 and sustained injury on his left leg. It is not disputed that he is running stainless steel utensils shop in question in Thatheri Bazar but subsequently he has taken over Sarafa business of his father and let out his own shop to new tenant. Thus, it is evident that need of the landlord is sufficed and, therefore, I am of the view that the release of the shop, which is only source of livelihood of the petitioner, will render him jobless without any source of income. I, therefore, conclude that there is no bonafide need of the landlord, which calls for release of the shop in question and the need, if any, the balance of hardship tilts in favour of the tenant. 17. Though the release application is liable to be dismissed, I cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner is paying meager amount of Rs. 70/- in a big city like Varanasi since the year 1985-86. The rent is definitely very less if compared by the going market rate. The landlord is entitled for higher rent and, therefore, I hold that rent of shop in question is liable to be enhanced from Rs. 70/- per month to Rs. 3,000/- per month. 18. For the reasons discussed above, the writ petition is allowed and judgment and order dated 30.3.1996 of the lower appellate Court is set at naught with a direction that the tenant should pay rent at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- w.e.f. 1.4.2009. The rent at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month to Rs. 3,000/- per month. 18. For the reasons discussed above, the writ petition is allowed and judgment and order dated 30.3.1996 of the lower appellate Court is set at naught with a direction that the tenant should pay rent at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- w.e.f. 1.4.2009. The rent at the rate of Rs. 3,000/­ for the current month shall be paid by the petitioner. So far arrears of rent for three months w.e.f. 1.4.2009 to a tune of Rs. 9,000/- is concerned, the same may be deposited within two months from today. In the event of default on the part of the petitioner, the landlord will be entitled to charge interest at the rate of 15% on the amount of arrears due. This interest will be calculated if the arrears are not paid within two months up to 15.9.2009. No interest will be payable on or prior to 15.9.2009. ————