Pankaj Mithal, J.;- The landlady Smt. Kamla Devi has preferred this writ petition challenging the judgment and order of the lower appellate court dated 29.1.2000 passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 103 of 1998 (Bhola Nath Jaiswal Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi). 2. The release application of the petitioner landlady under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the respondent no. 3 in respect of the shop situate on the ground floor forming part of the house no.72 A/70 Mohalla Dilkusha, Naya Katra, Allahabad was allowed on 16.5.1998 by the prescribed authority. The appeal preferred by the tenant respondent no. 3 was allowed on 29.1.2000 and the order of release was set aside. Thus, this petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. The writ petition was entertained and subsequently vide order dated 22.9.2006 as an interim measure respondent no. 3 was directed to pay enhanced rent of Rs. 2,500/- per month w.e.f., September 2006. Respondent no. 3 applied for recall of the above order but the application was rejected on 16.10.2006. The aforesaid two orders were assailed by respondent no. 3 before the Supreme Court by means of SLP which was dismissed on 19.2.2007. 4. Finally, the writ petition was decided vide judgment and order dated 9.7.2007. The petition was allowed and the judgment and order of the appellate court was quashed. Respondent no. 3 applied for recall of the judgment and order dated 9.7.2007. The application was rejected on 2.8.2007. In the meantime, execution proceed and the petitioner was put in possession of the disputed shop on 5.8.2007. Respondent no.3 aggrieved by the judgment and order passed in the writ petition and the rejection of his recall application went to the Supreme Court and preferred a SLP. Leave was granted and the civil appeal was finally disposed of vide order dated 22 February 2010. The orders of the High Court dated 2.8.2007 and 9.7.2007 were set aside with the request to decide the writ petition again after affording opportunity of hearing to both sides. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition was restored to its original number and has now come up for re-consideration before me by the nomination made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 6. I have heard Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Roli Kaushar, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. 7. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition was restored to its original number and has now come up for re-consideration before me by the nomination made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 6. I have heard Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Roli Kaushar, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. 7. The submission of Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the finding of bonafide need of the shop in dispute recorded by the prescribed authority has not been specifically reversed by the appellate court and therefore judgment and order of the appellate court can not be sustained. He has further submitted that respondent no. 3 has already acquired another shop in a very close vicinity and had started carrying business from the said new shop and since he is not in possession of the shop in dispute for the last over 3 years, the interest of justice demands to maintain the order of release passed by the prescribed authority. 8. Ms. Roli Kaushar, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has argued that during pendency of the appeal in the court below, one of the shops owned by the petitioner was vacated by another tenant and as such the need of the petitioner, if any, stands satisfied. Thus, no error was committed by the appellate court in allowing the appeal and rejecting the release application of the petitioner. 9. The petitioner had applied for release of the shop in dispute having an area 8ft./10 ft. on the allegation that she is the owner and the land-lady of house no. 72A/70 Naya Katra, Allahabad and the petitioner and her family lives in the same. She is a widowed lady and has no independent means of livelihood. His son Ashok Kumar could only study upto intermediate and is a low salaried employee ie. Driver in the Sales Tax Department and is unable to meet the family expenses. Her family consists of six persons which include the petitioner, his son, his son's wife and 3 grand children. The residential accommodation in her possession consists of only one room and that she is short of residential accommodation also. She requires the shop in dispute for starting a small shop which business she will carry along with her daughter in law. The residential accommodation in her possession consists of only one room and that she is short of residential accommodation also. She requires the shop in dispute for starting a small shop which business she will carry along with her daughter in law. In short, the need for the shop in dispute set up was for the purposes of business of a small shop to augment the family income. The release application was contested on the ground that the need set up was not genuine and bonafide. Respondent no. 2 who is carrying business of spirit (liquor) from the shop in dispute for the last 50 years had acquired immense goodwill and therefore he would suffer greater hardship. 10. The prescribed authority vide judgment and order dated 6.5.1998 after consideration of the entire evidence allowed the release application holding the need of the petitioner to be genuine and bonafide for doing independent business to augment the family income. It was also held that respondent no. 3 is having sufficient alternative properties in the city and all his sons are also having independent properties and businesses and as such the petitioner would suffer comparatively more hardship in case the release application is rejected. 11. The lower appellate court solely for the reason that one of the tenants Krishna Gupta had vacated one of the shops and handed over its possession to the petitioner allowed the appeal and set aside the order of release passed by the prescribed authority. 12. It has come on record that the shop so vacated by the said tenant was utilized by the petitioner for the residential purposes as she was also short of residential accommodation. There is nothing on record to establish that the aforesaid shop in fact satisfies the need of the petitioner set up in the release application ie., for running a small shop, particularly that of general merchandise which in common knowledge is one of the main business in the locality. No evidence has also been adduced to indicate that the petitioner has mis-utilized the shop vacated by the aforesaid tenant or that she is actually doing any business from there. 13. No evidence has also been adduced to indicate that the petitioner has mis-utilized the shop vacated by the aforesaid tenant or that she is actually doing any business from there. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the lower appellate court was not justified and correct in rejecting the release application on the ground that the shop vacated by one of the tenants is available to the petitioner and satisfies her need. The petitioner's need for a shop for business purpose continues to subsists despite vacation of the above referred shop as there is nothing on record to prove that it had satisfied the business need of the petitioner which was found to be bonafide. 14. Apart from the above, it is also true that the lower appellate court has not specifically reversed the finding of bonafide need as recorded by the trial court. 15. More importantly respondent no. 3 is out of possession of the shop in dispute since 5.8.2007. He had never carried business from the said shop in his own name and the business of liquor carried by him has been comfortably shifted to another shop in the vicinity. 16. Thus, in the totality of circumstances I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner land lady is entitle to use the shop in dispute for her own benefit and her need can not be termed as bogus. 17. Accordingly, the judgment and order of the lower appellate court dated 29.1.2000 can not be sustained in law. The Impugned judgment and order dated 29.1.2000 passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 103 of 1998 ( Bhola Nath Jaiswal Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi) is quashed and that of the prescribed authority allowing the release application is upheld. The writ petition as such succeeds and is allowed. 18. No orders as to costs.