JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of judgment dated 8.5.2009 and decree dated 11.5.2009 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.), Rampur in P.A. Case No. 9 of 2006, Ashok Kumar Mehrotra and others v. Rajesh Kumar Malhotra as well as judgment dated 23.4.2010 and decree dated 29.4.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Rampur in Rent Appeal No. 4 of 2009. 3. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the aforesaid judgment and decrees and has also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to evict him from the shop in question pursuant to the judgments aforesaid. 4. The facts culled out from record, in brief, are that shop in question situated at Taxi stand road, civil lines, Rampur was let out to the petitioner by the owner/landlady Smt. Girja Mehrotra wife of Sri Shiv Nath Mehrotra at the rate of Rs. 225/- per month. After taking the shop on rent, tenant petitioner established his business in the shop in the name and style “ R.K. Electronics”. The rent was enhanced from time to time and was Rs. 525/- per month on the date of filing of the suit. After the death of landlady Smt. Girja Mehrotra, the ownership devolved upon her husband Sri Shiv Nath Mehrotra, who also expired on 21.12.2005 leaving behind respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as legal heirs and representatives of estate of the deceased. According to the petitioner, since there was no partition of the property and as such, all the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased started demanding rent from him and in these circumstances he by a notice dated 24.4.2006 through his counsel requested the landlords as to whom rent may be paid. The respondents are said to have refused to accept the notice, compelling the tenant petitioner to deposit rent of the shop in Misc. Case No. 58 of 2006, in the Court of Civil Judge, Rampur with effect from 1.7.2006 , under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act No. 13 of 1972). 5. Case No. 58 of 2006, in the Court of Civil Judge, Rampur with effect from 1.7.2006 , under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act No. 13 of 1972). 5. The landlord respondents served a notice dated 14.8.2006 upon the petitioner demanding rent of the shop in question with effect from 10.1.2006 and also terminated his tenancy. This notice was replied by the petitioner tenant inter alia that he had never refused to pay rent of the shop but due to dispute amongst the landlords and upon their refusal to accept the notice dated 24.4.2006, he was compelled to deposit the rent for the period in dispute under Section 30(2) of Act No. 13 of 1972 as stated above. 6. An application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was thereafter filed in the Court of the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (SD), Rampur on 25.9.2006 setting up a claim for release of the shop in question on the ground of establishing Gaurav Mehrotra, son of applicant landlord No. 1 in business. This application was registered as P.A. case No. 9 of 2006. 7. The tenant petitioner appeared on receipt of the notice and contested the case by filing written statement claiming that he has never been a defaulter in payment of rent since creation of his tenancy in 1983 and that the shop in question is the only source of his livelihood. He set up a case that need of the landlord for the shop in question was not bona fide and that he would suffer greater hardships than the landlords if the shop is released. It was also stated that if the landlord respondents want to establish Sri Gaurav Mehrotra in business then they could have done so in the shop adjacent to the shop in question which is vacant and is of the same size and area. 8. Parties also filed documentary evidence and also adduced oral evidence in support of their respective case. 9. The Prescribed Authority after hearing the parties vide impugned judgment and order dated 8.5.2009 allowed the release application. 8. Parties also filed documentary evidence and also adduced oral evidence in support of their respective case. 9. The Prescribed Authority after hearing the parties vide impugned judgment and order dated 8.5.2009 allowed the release application. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred Rent Appeal No. 4 of 2009 under Section 22 of the Act, which was also dismissed maintaining the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority in P.A. case No. 9 of 2006. it is these judgments and decrees which have been impugned in the present petition. It may be noted that on 27.7.2010, the following conditional ad interim order was granted to the petitioner : “Sri T.A. Khan has accepted notice on behalf of the respondents. He prays for and is granted three weeks time to file counter-affidavit. Rejoinder-affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List in the week commencing 6.9.2010. Meanwhile, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the disputed premises provided he deposits rent at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month from July, 2010 payable by 7th of the next month. He will continue to deposit the same rent by 7th of each succeeding month, failing which, the interim order shall automatically be vacated. “ 10. The findings recorded by the prescribed authority has been challenged on the ground that prescribed authority has illegally come to the conclusion that need of the landlord respondent is bona fide and genuine and that the shop adjacent to the shop in question is not vacant as it is being used as garage by Smt. Madhu Mehrotra, wife of applicant landlord No. 2, who has purchased a car on 24.9.2006. 11. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that admittedly the car was purchased on 24.9.2006 i.e. one day prior to filing of the release application, thereby creating an artificial need for the shop in dispute regarding which the release application has been filed. 11. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that admittedly the car was purchased on 24.9.2006 i.e. one day prior to filing of the release application, thereby creating an artificial need for the shop in dispute regarding which the release application has been filed. Contention of the counsel for petitioner is that finding by the prescribed authority of genuine and bona fide need of the landlord is absolutely illegal for the reason that if the son of the respondent No. 1 namely Sri Gaurav Mehrotra was unemployed and the shop in question was required to establish him in business, then certainly he could have started his business in the vacant shop of the same size and area adjacent to the shop in dispute which was admittedly vacant upto 23.9.2006. According to him, Smt. Madhu Mehrotra who had purchased the car on 24.9.2006 was using the adjacent shop as garage since 24.9.2006. It is argued by the counsel for petitioner that both the Courts below have failed to consider this aspect of the matter while allowing the release application. She is the wife of respondent No. 2- Anil Kumar Mehrotra whereas Gaurav Mehrotra is the son of Ashok Kumar Mehrotra- respondent No. 1. According to him, the need of the landlord was neither bona fide nor they would suffer comparatively greater hardships than the tenant as they have created an artificial need for release of the shop in question by converting use of the vacant shop adjacent to the shop in dispute into a garage. 12. Per contra, counsel for the respondent landlord submits that admittedly the respondents are a joint family living together and that for the car purchased by the wife of respondent No. 2 on 24.9.2006, admittedly there is no parking space which is apparent from the statement of petitioner tenant himself in which he has suggested that car can be parked on roadside or on 800 sq. yards’ plot of the respondents at Bareilly Highway where a “Dharam Kanta” for weighing trucks has been established. This statement of the petitioner, according to him, goes to show that even according to the petitioner, there is no garage available to the landlord and therefore his need is genuine and bona fide. 13. Counsel for the respondent landlord has also relied upon paragraph No. 17 of the counter-affidavit and its reply given in paragraph No. 13 of the rejoinder-affidavit. 13. Counsel for the respondent landlord has also relied upon paragraph No. 17 of the counter-affidavit and its reply given in paragraph No. 13 of the rejoinder-affidavit. Paragraph 17 of counter-affidavit reads thus : “That it is also relevant to mention here that tenant petitioner after the judgment of the prescribed authority dated 8.5.2009 has already obtained shop No. 17 in Shree Zee Plaza, Jauhar Ali Road, Rampur and obtained electricity connection in the name of his only son Ashish Malhotra and opened a shop in the name and style R.K. Computer and Laptop Solution and this fact has been suppressed by the petitioner before the appellate Court as well as before this Hon’ble Court. For kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court photo copy of the electricity bill in the name of Asheesh Malhotra and board of R.K. Computer fixed at the shop is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. C.A-4 to this affidavit. 14. While replying aforesaid paragraph of the counter-affidavit in paragraph No. 13 of the rejoinder-affidavit, the tenant petitioner has not disputed the fact that his son Ashish Malhotra has acquired a shop in vacant state in Civil Lines, Rampur in Shree Zee Plaza where he is doing business. Paragraph No. 13 of the rejoinder-affidavit reads thus : “That the contents of paragraph No. 17 of the counter-affidavit are not admitted as stated hence denied. In reply thereof it is stated that son of the petitioner namely Asheesh Malhotra has recently opened a small shop and the petitioner has absolutely no concern with the said shop. The paragraph under reply has been framed purposely to give colour to the case.” 15. After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of records, it is apparent that petitioner tenant has come out with the case before the prescribed authority that the shop in dispute was the only source of his livelihood and that he has no other shop in the city though later on it transpires that he has also another shop in Shree Zee Plaza, Jauhar Ali Road, Civil Lines, Rampur in which his son is doing business and the electricity connection of that shop is also in the name of his son. Thus, since the tenant petitioner has acquired an alternative shop in vacant state where his son is doing business, comparative hardships of the tenant cannot be said to be greater than the need of the landlord respondent who require the shop in dispute for establishing his son Sri Gaurav Mehrotra in business in the shop in question. 16. There is another angle also from which this dispute can be looked into i.e. in the joint family of landlords, younger brother Anoop Kumar Mehrotra has been given the shop adjacent to the shop in question which is being used as garage by his wife Smt. Madhu Mehrotra. Admittedly, there is no parking space for the car of Madhu Mehrotra which is apparent from the statement of the tenant himself. Therefore, the landlords have amongst themselves given the shop adjacent to the shop in question to Madhu Mahrotra for parking of the car and the release application has been filed after purchase of the car and use of the said shop as garage. Therefore, the landlords have amongst themselves given the shop adjacent to the shop in question to Madhu Mahrotra for parking of the car and the release application has been filed after purchase of the car and use of the said shop as garage. This aspect of the matter has also been discussed by the trial Court as under : ^^layXud jftLV~s’ku izek.k i= ls xokg ds c;ku dh iqf"V gksrh gSA oLrqr% mijksDr ls Li"V gS fd iz’uxr dkj nkok nk;j djus ls iwoZ dz; dh x;h gSA oLrqr% mijksDr ls Li"V gS fd iz’uxr dkj nkok nk;j djus ls iwoZ dz; dh x;h gSA iath;u ckn esa gqvk gSA e/kq egjks=k us vius 'kiFk i= esa ;g Hkh dgk gS fd lc izkFkhZx.k , d gh edku esa jgrs gSaA QksVksxzkQ~l 30lh@5 o 30lh@6 ftudk [k.Mu foi{kh us ugha fd;k gS] ds voyksdu ls Hkh fofnr gS fd iz’uxr nqdku rFkk mDr nqdku ftles dkj [kM+h gS] ds chp izkFkhZx.k ds edku dk njoktk bruk cM+k ugha gS] tks mlds vUnj ls dkj tk ldsA foi{kh us ;g dFku fd;k gS fd e/kq egjks=k dh dkj edku jksM lkbM iVjh esa [kM+h gks ldrh gS] blds vfrfjDr izkFkhZx.k ds ikl yxHkx 800 oxZ xt dk ,d IykV cjsyh gkbZos ij gS] ftlesa mldk /keZdkaVk yxk gqvk gSA iz’uxr dkj mDr /keZdkaVk ij ;k mDr IykV esa lqfo/kk vuqlkj [kM+h gks ldrh gSA 'kiFk i= 52 , esa vfuy dqekj us l’kiFk dFku fd;k gS fd /keZdkaVk muds edku ls dkQh nwjh ij yxk gS vkSj ogkWa ls dkj [kM+h djus ds fy;s xSfjt ugha gS vkSj u gh dkj [kM+h djus ds fy;s /keZdkaVk ij jkstkuk vk;k tk;k tk ldrk gSA U;k;ky; dh jk; esa izkFkhZ dk dFku rdZlaxr yxrk gSA dkj dks ?kj ds vUnj ugha ys tk;k tk ldrk gSA /keZdkaVk cjsyh gkbZos ij fLFkr izkFkhZ ds èkeZdkaVs ij vFkok IykV ij dk dks jkstkuk ykuk ys tkuk ,oa ,d nq"dj dk;Z gSA ;fn dkj ckgj jksM ij [kM+h dh tkrh gS rks /kwi o cjlkr esa [kjkc gks ldrh gS] pksjh Hkh gks ldrh gSa vr% foi{kh dk rdZ Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA mijksDr ls Li"V gS fd izkFkhZx.k ds ikl njoktk ls yxh tks nqdku gS] mlesa e/kq egjks=k dh dkj [kM+h gksrh gS] mldk iz;ksx xSfjt ds :i esa fd;k tkrk gSA oLrqr% mDr nqdku orZeku esa [kkyh ugha gSA tkfgj gS fd xkSjo egjks=k dh mDr nqdku esa dkjksckj djuk lEHko ugha gSA** 17. From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that claim of the tenant petitioner that the shop adjacent to the shop in question is vacant, is incorrect rather this ground was not available to him as it was being used as garage by Madhu Mehrotra prior to filing of the release application. 18. The Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact regarding the need and comparative hardships in favour of the landlord respondents. Moreover, since the tenant petitioner has already acquired a shop in Civil Lines, Rampur where his son is doing business, therefore, the only ground on which he wanted to retain the shop, that it is the only shop available to him and is the source of his livelihood, is no longer available to him and has become redundant. 19. The tenant petitioner also appears to have concealed this fact at the appellate stage that a shop in vacant state was acquired by a member of his family after passing of order by the prescribed authority and prior to filing of the appeal. This fact has also not been stated by him in the present writ petition apparently for the reason that if these facts had been brought on record by him, he would have had no case and his need for the shop in dispute would stand demolished. These facts having been brought on record in this petition by the landlord who has submitted that these subsequent events can be looked into by the Court as they go to the very root of the controversy and law in this regard is settled that Courts can look into subsequent events occurring during pendency of the litigation for substantial justice between the parties. The petitioner appears not to have approached this Court with clean hands and therefore is not entitled to any sympathy from the Court. 20. For all the reasons stated above, there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 27.7.2010 is vacated. As prayed, one month’s time is allowed to the petitioner to shift to his alternate shop and handover peaceful possession of the shop in question to the respondent landlord. No order as to costs.