JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. This petition has been filed by petitioner who is tenant for quashing the order passed by Prescribed Authority/Judge, Small Causes Court, Bareilly dated 06.12.2018 in PA Case No. 23 of 2004 (Raj Bahadur v. Kishan Lal) and order dated 16.01.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Court No. 2 (Anti-Corruption Act), Bareilly in Rent Control Appeal No. 02 of 2011 (Kishan Lal v. Raj Bahadur). 2. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner had taken the shop in dispute situated in property No. 138, Kwaja Kutub, Kuncha Sitaram, Bareilly on a monthly rent of Rs. 225/- in 1982. The petitioner is running his business of selling Pan and kites in the said small shop. The landlord, respondent No. 1, since deceased filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 seeking release of the shop in dispute on the ground that when the said shop was given on rent in 1982 the children of the landlord were small. Later on, his three sons have all grown up. The eldest son Kapil Rastogi was married and settled. The second son Amit Rastogi was educated but remained unemployed and third son Monu Rastogi was studying. Accordingly the need was set up for Amit Rastogi. 3. It was alleged in the release application that the shop in question was required for settling him in general merchandise business. The petitioner-tenant filed written statement bringing on record the fact that Amit was not unemployed but was running business of selling artificial jewellery. The landlord although did not dispute the said contention. He filed a pathology report of Amit Rastogi to show that the doctor had advised him not to pursue his business of artificial jewellery as the number of cells of lymphocytes in his blood have increased many-fold and eosinophils also went abnormal and there was hidden infection symptoms which might cause Asthama at later stage if he continues with his current business. It is contended that the pathology reports were unaccompanied by any doctor's prescription and could not have been relied upon by the learned Trial Court. 4. It is contended that the pathology reports were unaccompanied by any doctor's prescription and could not have been relied upon by the learned Trial Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the contention of the landlord that petitioner tenant had alternative business also of running rickshaws i.e. hand driven tricycles on rent and he had a huge income therefrom and he did not need the shop in question was also disputed by the petitioner tenant. 5. The learned Trial Court, however, allowed the said release application on 06.12.2010 and the tenant petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bareilly i.e. Rent Control Appeal No. 2 of 2011 (Kishan Lal v. Raj Bahadur). Raj Bahadur died during the pendency of the appeal and was substituted by his widow, his three sons and one daughter. During the pendency of the appeal, the landlord had constructed four new shops which were being used by them and therefore, the bonafide need set up by the landlord stood eclipsed and an application for appointing Commission was moved on behalf of the petitioner tenant, which was rejected by the learned Appellate Court on 27.11.2015. 6. The petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66798 of 2015 wherein although the order dated 27.11.2015 was not interfered with, this Hon'ble Court permitted the petitioner to bring on record the above fact of the matter through affidavit and other evidence. 7. The petitioner moved an affidavit and appended therewith photographs and site plan of the new constructions. Despite there being material on record to show that the landlord had alternative accommodation in the shape of four shops constructed by him at his residence, which were available for settling his three sons, the Appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 16.01.2018 dismissed the appeal. 8. The learned counsel for petitioner tenant, Shri Gaurav Dwivedi holding brief of Shri Rahul Sahai has taken this Court through the relevant passages of the Trial Court judgment dated 06.12.2010 and the order passed by the Appellate Court thereafter to show that the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court discarded the evidence produced by the petitioner-tenant and believed the story set up by the landlord-respondent arbitrarily. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, has pointed out several judgments relied upon by the learned Trial Court and by the Appellate Court and the affidavits filed by the widow of the deceased landlord to show that now even Monu Rastogi, the third son of landlord late Raj Bahadur is 26 years old and to settle down and get him married there is need for the shop in question. The affidavits submitted by the petitioner-tenant regarding the shops said to be newly constructed by the landlord were also disputed as according to the landlord no such newly constructed shops were available with the landlord as submitted by the petitioner-tenant. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Panna Lal Sonkar v. Swami Nath Singh, 2012 (2) ARC 351 and has read paragraph - 5 thereof. Paragraph - 5 of the afore-cited judgement is being quoted herein below:- "A perusal of the record shows that the application under Section 21 of the Act for release of the disputed premises was filed by the respondent-landlord for establishing his two educated unemployed sons namely Ajay and Sanjay in business, who did not have any independent business. The Amin Report further shows that there are three shops in the disputed building. Out of the three shops disputed shop is occupied by the petitioner and the other two by the landlord. One of which having two shutters is used by him for business purpose and the smaller one for storing goods. The respondent has two educated and unemployed sons. If the small shop is utilized by one of his son for his independent business still the respondent landlord would require one more shop to engage his second son. Every adult member of the family has a right to carry on business of his/her own choice. The sons of the respondent landlord cannot be denied of this right. There is nothing on record to show that the sons of the respondent are carrying on any independent business." 11. It is settled position in law that subsequent events can be looked into by the court to do complete justice amongst the parties. The release application was filed by the landlord in 2004. It was allowed by the learned Trial Court in 2010. It is settled position in law that subsequent events can be looked into by the court to do complete justice amongst the parties. The release application was filed by the landlord in 2004. It was allowed by the learned Trial Court in 2010. Thereafter the appeal was filed, which has also been dismissed in January, 2018. During the intervening period of 14 years the position between the parties has substantially changed and the learned Trial Court has therefore recorded subsequent events like need of Monu Rastogi, the third son of the landlord also being substantially proved by the landlord-respondent. This Court, therefore, finds no factual or legal infirmity in the orders impugned. The writ petition is dismissed. 12. However, at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for some reasonable time to be given to the petitioner-tenant to vacate the shop in question as according to him it is his only source of livelihood. 13. A period of six months is given to the tenant to vacate the premises in question subject to payment of rent of Rs. 1500/- per month to the landlord-respondent provided the petitioner-tenant shall file an undertaking on affidavit within fifteen days from today before the learned Court below regarding delivery of vacant and peaceful possession of the shop in question to the landlord within a period of six months.