JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh, J. Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel? for the petitioner and Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the respondent.? 2.Sri Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Prescribed Authority has dismissed the release application taking note of the fact that the respondents seeking release of the accommodation have not come with clean hands and filed the release application on the false averments by not disclosing other accommodations available to them.? He has also contended that it is not in dispute that the respondent's son Sri Abdul Khaliq son of Sri Abdul Hai was sitting with his father and assisting him in the whole-sale of shoes business and during the pendency of the appeal the father has died and the Appellate Court while setting aside the judgment of the Prescribed Authority has not given due consideration this aspect of the matter? as the need of Sri Abdul Khaliq stood satisfied after the death of his father. 3. Refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this writ petition is defective due to non-joinder of the necessary parties. He has also submitted that death of? the land lord? would not mean that need of the landlord's family? has vanished or stood satisfied.? In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Narendra Singh vs. Suraj Prasad Gupta and others ( 2013 (2) ARC 620 ). In his submission every major son of the land lord is entitled to run independent business and availability of other accommodation will not be a bar for seeking of release of the accommodation in dispute. 4. Matter requires scrutiny. 5. Issue notice. 6. Sri M.L. Maurya has filed caveat on behalf of the respondents, therefore, notice need be served again.? Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted two week's time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. List thereafter. 7. As an interim measure without prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties, subject to deposit of Rs. 3,000/- per month towards rent before the lower appellate court, the eviction of the petitioners from the shop in dispute shall remain stayed.? Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. List thereafter. 7. As an interim measure without prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties, subject to deposit of Rs. 3,000/- per month towards rent before the lower appellate court, the eviction of the petitioners from the shop in dispute shall remain stayed.? The rent has been enhanced keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd.- (2005) 1 SCC 705 , as well as by this Court in Ganga Prasad Vs. M/s. Hanif Opticians 2005 (2) ARC 723 , Rajeshwari (Smt.) Vs. Smt. Prema Agarwal, 2005(1) ARC-526, Hari Mohan Kichlu Vs. VIIIth A.D.J. Muzaffarnagar and others, 2004 (2) ARC-652; Khurshida Vs. A.D.J. 2004(2) ARC-64 =2004(54) ALR-177, Smt. Zohra Vs. IVth A.D.J. Jhansi 2006(63) ALR 643. The enhanced monthly rent for the month of December, 2013 shall be deposited by the petitioners by 7th? January, 2014 and likewise on or before 7th day of each succeeding months the same amount shall be deposited. The rent so deposited may be withdrawn by the land lord.? In case of default in paying the rent by the petitioners the interim order shall stand automatically vacated.