JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—This writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution in the absence of learned counsel for the tenant petitioner as well as landlady-respondent No. 2 on 20.1.2004. Thereafter restoration application was filed which was allowed on Rs. 25,000/- as cost on 8.8.2012. Both the tenant-petitioner as well as landlady-respondent No. 2 have died. Their substitution applications were also allowed on 8.8.2012 and arguments on the merit of the writ petition were also heard on the same date. 2. This is tenant’s writ petition arising out of proceedings for release of the accommodation in dispute which is residential in nature and rent of which is Rs. 16/- per month. The release application was filed on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Building Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction Act 1972 and was registered in the form of Rent Case No. 175 of 1976. Prescribed authority/Ist Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur rejected the release application on 5.8.1981 holding that landlady had sufficient residential accommodation in her possession. 3. Against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, landlady-respondent No. 2 filed Rent Appeal No. 270 of 1981 which was allowed by District Judge, Kanpur on 23.9.1982. Order of the Prescribed Authority was set aside and release application was allowed. 4. Release application was filed on 27.9.1978. However, only about four and half months before i.e. on 15.5.1978 landlady had sold adjoining residential portion consisting of three rooms. Regarding this sale deed the case of the tenant was that it was sham as through it property had been sold to her brother-in-law by the landlady and even in the sale deed itself it was mentioned that no sale consideration was paid and sale deed was being executed for some old debt. However, landlady pleaded that the sale deed was quite genuine and purchaser was not her bother-in-law. The lower appellate Court held that the sale deed was genuine and tenant could not prove that the purchaser was brother-in-law of the landlady the seller. The sold portion was western wing of the accommodation in which landlady was residing and part of which was the tenanted portion in dispute. The Prescribed Authority had held that the sold portion was in-fact in occupation of the landlady which was sufficient to satisfy her need. 5. The sold portion was western wing of the accommodation in which landlady was residing and part of which was the tenanted portion in dispute. The Prescribed Authority had held that the sold portion was in-fact in occupation of the landlady which was sufficient to satisfy her need. 5. Learned counsel for the landlady respondent has filed Supplementary Affidavit showing that at the time of filing of the release application the family of the landlady consisted of fourteen persons however, now the family consisted of twenty members. 6. Even if it is assumed that the sale deed was perfectly genuine still release application was liable to be rejected on the ground that in case need of the landlady had been genuine and bona fide, she would not have sold three rooms accommodation just four and half months before filing of the release application. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents alongwith his written arguments has supplied copies of two judgments. One is Ranjit Singh v. Ganeshi Lal Gupta, 1982 ARC 275. In the said case, it has been held that the release application was filed for the commercial need which accrued in 1971 hence the fact that in the year 1970 landlord got vacated a shop from a tenant and gave the same on rent to another tenant was irrelevant. The other authority is reported in 1981 ARC Short Notes of Cases 6. I have perused the entire file of the said case (correct number is Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1855 of 1977 and not 1955 of 1977 as mentioned in A.R.C.). In the said case the District Judge while allowing the appeal of the landlord had held that the fact that earlier landlord had sold a shop was not fatal as at that time he was not in need of the shop. In the said case landlord had filed release application for settling his son in business who was retiring from his job. This Court held that “The Circumstance that the landlord had a couple of years ago prior to the making of the present application got vacated a shop and sold the same has been taken into consideration by the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge has rightly remarked that that by itself does not disprove the genuineness of the present need of the land for the accommodation in dispute.” 8. The learned District Judge has rightly remarked that that by itself does not disprove the genuineness of the present need of the land for the accommodation in dispute.” 8. In this regard reference may be made to the following authorities of the Supreme Court. (i) Balaji Krishna Hardware Stores v. Srinivasaiah, AIR 1998 SC 994 . In the said case some shops belonging to the landlord became vacant during pendency of the release proceedings however instead of giving any of those shops to his son for whose need release application had been filed landlord gave them to his daughters-in-law. The Supreme Court in para-6 held that “In the absence of any explanation as to why this shop behind the appellant’s shop was not found suitable, we are constrained to hold that the conclusion of Courts below that it was not suitable for the landlord’s son business was not tenable.” The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of all the three Courts below including the High Court allowing the release application of the landlord and after allowing the appeal rejected the release application of the landlord. (ii) Shashi Kapila v. R.P. Ashwin, AIR 2002 SC 101 . In the said case 6 years before filing of the release application landlord had agreed to sell some portion in his possession. In para-15, the Supreme Court held as follows : “The above developments would indicate that the need of the landlord for occupying the suit building arose only long after 17.4.1986. Therefore, he cannot be preempted from claiming the relief merely on the ground that six years prior to it he was willing to sell the building.” (iii) Dinesh Kumar v. Yusuf Ali, AIR 2010 SC 2679 . In para-10 of the said authority, it has been held as follows : “Thus, an incident too remote from the date of institution of suit may not be relevant for consideration at all.” 9. Accordingly, in view of above authorities of the Supreme Court, it is clear that in case landlady had sold the western portion several years before filing of the release application then it could not be fatal, however the landlady sold the portion just four and a half month’s before filing of the release application have it disproved her need. Need for residential building normally does not suddenly erupt; it accumulates during several years when family grows. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Need for residential building normally does not suddenly erupt; it accumulates during several years when family grows. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned judgment and order passed by the Lower Appellate Court is set aside and judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the release application is restored. However, as far as rent is concerned it is ridiculous that a residential portion in Kanpur is carrying rent of Rs. 16/- per month. Regarding enhancement of rent, last part of order dated 8.8.2012 is quoted below : “On inquiry from Court as to whether, in case, writ petition is allowed, tenant -petitioner would agree to pay some reasonable rent (existing rent is Rs. 16 per month), learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner stated that he agrees to the tentative figure of Rs. 1,000/- per month rent as suggested by the Court.” Accordingly, it is directed that with effect from September, 2012 onward tenants-petitioners shall pay rent to the landlords-respondents at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. —————