JUDGMENT Hon’ble Devendra Pratap Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition by the tenant is directed against an order dated 1.12.1995 by which the appellate Court has allowed the release application filed by the respondent landlord. 3. Barkat Ram, owner and landlord of shop No. 200 situated in property No. 70 in Valley Bazar in Meerut filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was registered as P.A. Case No. 11 of 1992. It was alleged in the application that the petitioner was a tenant of the disputed shop at Rs. 500/- per month and was engaged in selling cloth and wool in different weekly markets at different places in Meerut which was his main source of income. It was stated that the shop was let out when his sons were minor and now all the four sons have become major and all of them are married. The two elder sons are employed while the third is a Doctor but his 4th son Vipin Kumar had been helping the landlord in running his clothing business. It was further stated that the Vipin Kumar had strained relations with his mother and since the business in which he was helping was not very profitable, he wants to settle his unmarried son in business of his own for which he required the disputed shop. It was further stated that several shops in that very market were available and the tenant could obtain any shop for him from which he could carry on with his roaming business. 4. The tenant contested the application inter alia alleging that the landlord was an old man of about 70 years who was unable to do any work and in fact, Vipin Kumar his son, was looking after the business and apart from the disputed shop there were two shops on the first floor which were being utilized by Vipin Kumar. It was further alleged that the landlord possessed another property No. 17, Jain Nagar, Meerut which stood in the name of his wife and apart from that they had property No. 4/86 and 4/87 in Modinagar in District Ghaziabad. With these allegations, it was alleged that the need was neither genuine nor bona fide and since the tenant had no other place to shift his business, the comparative hardship would be more to him than to the landlord. With these allegations, it was alleged that the need was neither genuine nor bona fide and since the tenant had no other place to shift his business, the comparative hardship would be more to him than to the landlord. 5. After the parties had led their evidence, the Prescribed Authority rejected the application holding that the need was neither genuine nor bona fide and that shop at the first floor was available. On appeal the Court found that the Prescribed Authority has not considered the material evidence available on record whereupon he went on to record findings that both the persons could not run the existing shop of the landlord which was measuring 8 feet by 10 feet and coupled with the fact that relations between the mother in law and the daughter in law was strained and that the son genuinely required an independent shop, the need was both genuine and bona fide and it went on to hold that the even comparative hardship would be greater to the landlord and therefore, allowed the application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through the findings recorded by the appellate Court but has failed to point out any error of law, much less an error apparent on the face of record to demonstrate that the order requires interference in writ jurisdiction, because the conclusions recorded by the appellate Court are based on findings of fact which cannot be upset except when there is glaring illegality or perversity. 7. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has laid great stress on the fact that during the pendency of this writ petition the landlord had died and therefore, the shop which was being run by the landlord could now be used by his son Vipin Kumar for whom the disputed shop was got released and therefore, the order impugned is bound to be set aside as the need stood satisfied. In support thereof, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Kedarnath Agarwal v. Dhanraji Devi [2004 ARC 764] and another decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in the case of Jai Narain Khanna v. IInd Additional District Judge, Moradabad [2007 (1) ARC 254]. 8. In support thereof, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Kedarnath Agarwal v. Dhanraji Devi [2004 ARC 764] and another decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in the case of Jai Narain Khanna v. IInd Additional District Judge, Moradabad [2007 (1) ARC 254]. 8. No doubt, as held in both the judgments above, that the basic Rule is that the rights of the parties should be determined on the basis of the date of institution of the suit or proceedings but it is the power and duty of the Court to consider changed circumstances where the original relief claimed may become in appropriate or the subsequent events shorten the litigation or to do complete justice between the parties. However, learned counsel for the landlord has urged that if the subsequent events are to be considered, the change in position qua the tenant has also to be considered. Thus, the Court is left with no other option but to examine the subsequent events. 9. It is no doubt true, in fact it is admitted to the respondent, that the original landlord has died during the pendency of this writ petition. It is also evident that the application for release was filed in January, 1992 when the landlord was about 70 years old and though the shop was released in 1995, but due to an interim order in this petition filed in 1995, he could not settle his son and ultimately died. But the fact as of now is that it can be said that the shop which was being used by him has become available to Vipin Kumar. However, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it is stated in paragraph 7 that during the pendency of this writ petition the respondent landlord has acquired at least two premises and six different contiguous plots in the City of Meerut. It would be relevant to quote paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit which runs as under: “(7) That the petitioner Rashid Ahmed is a very rich person having huge property in Meerut city and he has occupied several commercial and residential building in Meerut city. The details of the commercial property owned by the petitioner are as follows: (I) One shop in the name of his son Chand Mohammad and Jai Mohammad 116 Sarswati Mandi Surajkund Road, Meerut. The details of the commercial property owned by the petitioner are as follows: (I) One shop in the name of his son Chand Mohammad and Jai Mohammad 116 Sarswati Mandi Surajkund Road, Meerut. (II) Second a commercial property purchased by petitioner which is situated at Garh Road Meerut city measuring about area 116.13 sq. meter for a sum of Rs. 20,00000 registered on Bahi No. 1 Zild 2927 at page 115/152 Serial No. 2289 on 26.6.2008. (III) A plot measuring 64.38 sq. meter by the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 13,25,000/-, purshased on 31.3.2008 registeration was done at Bahi No. 1 Zild 5973 page 395/416 on 26.6.2008. It is also in name of the petitioner. (IV) A plot measuring 282.50 sq. meters was also purchased in the name of petitioner Gandhi Nagar, Garh Road, Meerut for a sum of Rs. 22,00,000/-. Its registration was done at serial No. 6522 on 1.2.2008 in Bhai No. 1 Zild 5859 at pages 1/30 bearing No. 948. (V) A plot measuring 111.47 sq. meters in the same locality on Garh Road, Meerut was purchased by the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 11,50,000/-. Its registration was done at No. 651221/2008 on 1.3.2008 in Bahi No. 1 Zild 5908 at page 209/244 at No. 1924 dated 26.6.2008 in the name of the petitioner. (VI) A plot measuring 150.97 sq. meters for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- it was purchased on 7.3.2008. Its registration was done in 6525/2008 on Bahi No. 1 Zild 5916 page 357/384 at No. 2081 on 26.6.2008. (VII) A plot measuring 111.47 sq. meters was purchased by the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 11,50,000/- in the name of his sons Chand Mohd. And Jan Mohd, registered in Bahi No. 1 Zild 5908 at page 173/208 at No. 1923 dated 26.6.2008. (VIII) A plot was also purchased by the petitioner in his name and in the name of his sons Chand Mohammad and Deen Mohammad. The area of this plot 282.50 sq. meter, it was purchased for a sum of Rs. 21,95,000/-. It is also pertinent to note that these all plots are adjacent to each other and forms a complete compact plot centrally situate at Ghar Road in Meerut City within the vicinity of commercial area, where is is going to construct a big Mall. meter, it was purchased for a sum of Rs. 21,95,000/-. It is also pertinent to note that these all plots are adjacent to each other and forms a complete compact plot centrally situate at Ghar Road in Meerut City within the vicinity of commercial area, where is is going to construct a big Mall. (IX) It is also pertinent to note that with the increase of population Meerut city has expanded on Ghar Road where posh localities like Shastri Nagar, Islamabad, Medical College, Phool Bagh, State Bank Colony are situated. Thus these commercial plot is situated in main market and heart of the Meerut city.” The petitioner tenant has filed a rejoinder to the said counter which is quoted below: “(7) That the contents of paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the counter-affidavit are not admitted as framed and in reply there of it is submitted that the property describe in 1 has been sold in the year 2003 as the petitioner was in heavy debts and for the repayment of the loan, the second property is the house of the petitioner and the properties mentioned at serial Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 are plots which have been purchased for the purposes of settling sons of the petitioner who are grown up and do not have any interest in studies further the house in which the petitioner resides is very small and after the marriage of the son it would not be possible that all of them would be able to reside in the same house. It is further submitted that the respondents have got the adjacent shops vacated and has taken over the possession besides the shops which were on the first floor the petitioner is filing the photographs the proved the averments. The true copies of the photographs 4 in numbers are being filed herewith and are marked as Annexure No. RA to this affidavit. It would be pertinent to mention that the possession was taken on September, 2003.” 10. A joint reading of the two affidavits would show that shop No. 116 Saraswati Mandi, Suraj Kund Road, Meerut and mentioned at item No. 1 is alleged to have been sold in 2003 but the petitioner states that it was sold to pay off the heavy loan and debt. A joint reading of the two affidavits would show that shop No. 116 Saraswati Mandi, Suraj Kund Road, Meerut and mentioned at item No. 1 is alleged to have been sold in 2003 but the petitioner states that it was sold to pay off the heavy loan and debt. However, neither the date of the alleged sale deed is disclosed nor any detail has been disclosed as to whom and when was it sold and for how much and who was the creditor etc. This would lead to the only conclusion that the petitioner is hiding something from the Court and adverse inference is bound to be drawn against him and the alleged sale becomes very doubtful. 11. So far as the commercial property situated at Garh Road, Meerut is concerned, which is item No. 2 in the counter-affidavit, apart from saying that it is the house of the petitioner, no further explanation is given. Admittedly, the petitioner along with his family was already residing at a different place in the city of Meeerut. He does not say that the earlier residential premises was not sufficient to meet his requirement coupled with the fact that it is a commercial property but the petitioner has not disclosed the extent of the accommodation which is available there, thus a presumption can be raised against him. Apart from that he has purchased at least six contiguous plots in Meerut itself for more than one crore and seven lacs in all. Curiously enough, all the aforesaid purchases have been made in 2008 and at least four were registered on 26.6.2008 itself. 12. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner tenant has acquired at least two built up commercial properties and six vacant plots in the commercial area which more than neutralises subsequent events qua the landlord. Considering the cumulative effect of the subsequent events, the Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary power to grant any indulgence to the petitioner. 13. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. ————