Sibghat Ullah Khan,J. Heard Sri U.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned counsel for contesting respondent tenant. 2. This is landlords' writ petition arising out of eviction/ release proceedings initiated by them under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No.13 of 1972) on the ground of bona fide need. Release application was filed by Shanker Lal and Babu Ram, both real brothers and their mother Smt. Bitana in the form of P.A. Case No.31 of 1976, Babu Ram and others Vs. Om Prkash. Smt. Bitana died during pendency of release applications and was survived by the other two applicants, hence her name was deleted. Sri Babu Ram also died on 25.11.1983 and was substituted by his widow Smt. Stayawati, original petitioner No.1. Both the petitioners i.e. Smt. Satyawati and Sri Shanker Lal died during pendency of the writ petition and were substituted by their legal representatives. Original tenant respondent No.3, Om Prakash also died during pendency of writ petition and was substituted by his legal representatives. 3. Twice the matter was remanded by the lower appellate court. After second remand, the Prescribed Authority, Munsif Barabanki dismissed the release application on 22.08.1984. Against the said order, original petitioners filed Rent Control Appeal No.5 of 1984. First A.D.J. Barabanki dismissed the appeal on 04.04.1987, hence this writ petition. 4. The need set up in the release application was for Shanker Lal, original petitioner No.2. It was stated that he proposed to start business in the shop in dispute. 5. The courts below held that his need was not bona fide. 6. In the release application it was stated that Shaker Lal had a large family to look after, however the need for any of his sons/ daughters was not set up. It was also not pleaded that any of his sons or daughters will assist him in the business. 7. The findings recorded by the courts below were challenged by learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for contesting respondents had defended the same. 8. In my opinion, there is no need to decide the correctness of the findings of the courts below for the reason that Sri Shankar Lal for whose need release application was filed died during pendency of this writ petition. 9. 8. In my opinion, there is no need to decide the correctness of the findings of the courts below for the reason that Sri Shankar Lal for whose need release application was filed died during pendency of this writ petition. 9. Learned counsel for both the parties have cited several authorities in respect of subsequent events, their effect and power of court to take them into consideration. I have discussed this aspect in an authority reported in Dipti Singh Vs. II A.D.J., Mainpuri, 2006 (1) ARC 157. Para-8 of the said authority is quoted below: "In Shakuntala Bai Vs. Narain Das, AIR 2004 SC 3484 decided on 5.5.2004,(reported in 2004 SCFBRC 338, it was held that subsequent event of death of landlord is not to be taken into consideration. However in another authority decided on 13.10.2004 reported in K.N.Agarwal Vs. Dhanraji Devi, 2004 (2) ARC 764 a contrary view was taken and it was held by the Supreme Court that death of the landlord during pendency of the writ petition for whose need the shop in dispute was released by the courts below made the release order passed by the courts below ineffective and inexecutable as due to the death of the landlord the need vanished and in case his heirs were interested in doing business they could file a fresh release application. Unfortunately in the later authority of K.N.Agarwal the earlier authority of Shakuntala Bai was not considered. In Kamleshwar Prasad Vs. B.Agarwal AIR 1997 SC 2399 also it was held that death of the landlord does not make any difference. The said case arose out of U.P Rent Control Act and was considered in Shakuntala Bai's case." 10. If need of Shanker Lal had been found bona fide by the courts below, it might have been necessary to decide that what would be the effect of his death during pendency of the writ petition. However, as both the courts below held that his need was not bona fide hence there is absolutely no occasion to consider in this writ petition as to whether the deceased (Shankar Lal) had proved his need or not. It would be purely academic. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that petitioners belong to business community and need for the sons of Shankar Lal may be presumed. However need has to be proved and not presumed. It would be purely academic. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that petitioners belong to business community and need for the sons of Shankar Lal may be presumed. However need has to be proved and not presumed. It will be highly improper to decide as to whether substituted legal representatives of Shankar Lal have got any bona fide need in the writ petition for the first time. This is basically the job of the Prescribed Authority. 11. Accordingly, without entering into the merit of the case, writ petition is to be dismissed as infructuous only on the ground that the person for whose need release application was filed and rejected died during pendnecy of the writ petition. Any of the legal representatives of Shankar Lal or any other landlord(s) may file fresh release application for his/ their need. If such an application is filed, it shall be decided on the basis of evidence brought on record and in accordance with law. Any finding recorded in the impugned orders challenged through this writ petition whether of fact or law shall not be either treated as binding or even taken into consideration while deciding the release application, which may be filed by any of the present landlords. 12. I have held in Khursheeda Versus A.D.J, 2004 (2) ARC 64 and H.M.Kichlu Vs. A.D.J 2004(2) ARC 652 that while granting relief to the tenant against eviction or maintaining the said relief already granted by the court below in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act, writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. Under somewhat similar circumstances the Supreme Court in the authority reported in A.K Bhatt Vs. R.M Shah AIR 1997 SC 2510 enhanced the rent from Rs. 101/- per month to Rs. 3500/- per month with effect from the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court. For the period during which appeal remained pending before the Supreme Court rent was enhanced to Rs. 2000/- per month for some of the period and Rs. 2500/- per month for rest of the period. In the said authority release application of the landlord had been allowed by the courts below. For the period during which appeal remained pending before the Supreme Court rent was enhanced to Rs. 2000/- per month for some of the period and Rs. 2500/- per month for rest of the period. In the said authority release application of the landlord had been allowed by the courts below. The Supreme Court held that the landlord who had sought release of the building when he was about 54 years of age had become 87 years of age when the matter was decided by the Supreme Court hence he was not in a position to do any business. This fact of old age of the landlord was taken into consideration as relevant subsequent event by the Supreme Court. 13. Property in dispute is a shop situate in the main market near Dharmshala Barabanki as stated in para-1 of the release application. 14. Accordingly, it is directed that w.e.f. December, 2013 onward tenants respondents shall pay rent to the landlords petitioners at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month. (Existing rent is Rs.60/- per month as stated in para-9 of the release application, which is virtually as well as actually no rent for a shop.) This enhancement of rent is irrespective of the claim of enhanced rent made in S.C.C. Suit No.1/13, Harish Chandra Gupta Vs. Rajendra Kumar, stated to be pending before J.S.C.C./ Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.20, Barabanki. The matter subjudice in the said suit shall be decided in accordance with evidence brought on record therein and the legal position. 15. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous with the above observations and directions. ___________________