Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25620 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1000132 of 2014 Petitioner :- Asad Umar Rahman And 4 Others Respondent :- The Learned Addl. District Judge Ct.No.-11 Lucknow And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Srivastava,Kabir Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- U.N. Mishra, Ravi Shanker Tiwari AND Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1000133 of 2014 Petitioner :- Asad Umar Rahman And 4 Others Respondent :- The Learned Addl. District Judge Ct.No.-11 Lucknow And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Srivastava, Kabir Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- U.N. Mishra, Ravi Shanker Tiwari Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. A request has been made on behalf of the respondents to pass over the matter as the counsel is unwell, however, considering the fact that the petitions are of the year 2014, I do not see any reason to adjourn the matter and the same are being decided based upon the material available on record. 2. As both the petitions are filed by the same petitioners and arise out of the same orders, the same are being decided by means of this common order. 3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner. 4. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 30.05.2014 passed by the appellate authority whereby the appeal preferred by the tenant was allowed and the release application which was allowed by the prescribed authority vide order dated 15.09.2012 was set aside. 5. The facts, as emerge from the petition, are that the petitioners landlord moved an application under section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 seeking release of the property in question on the ground that the third son of the petitioner had completed his Civil Engineering and MA and was unemployed and his marriage has also been solemnized, as such, the premises in question was required for establishing him. It was further stated that he had applied for grant of Petrol Pump and was called for interview also, as such, the property in question was required. The prescribed authority, after considering the evidence and the material as placed, allowed the release application holding that the property in question was required bonafide and the need as setup was genuine. The said order of the prescribed authority was challenged in an appeal. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, it was pleaded that the Petrol Pump which was sought to be established was never sanctioned by the Petroleum Company. The appellate court, impressed upon the said argument, held that no document was placed on record to establish that a contract was executed in favour of the son of the landlord for running the Petrol Pump, as such, the need setup could not be established and the appeal was allowed. 6. Challenging the said judgment, the counsel for the petitioners argues that in the need setup, it was stated that the third son of the landlord was unemployed and wanted to setup a business for which efforts were being made to setup a Petrol Pump Outlet. It was pleaded that one of the conditions was that the applicant should have a property on lease or ownership for more than thirty years. He argues that the appellate court in recording that no contract was placed on record as the contract could never have been executed as the petitioner could not establish the vacant and peaceful possession of the area required for setting up the Petrol Pump outlet as the same was in occupation of the tenant. It is further argued that from the pleadings it was clear that the son of the landlord was unemployed which fact has not been upset in the appellate order. 7. Considering the reasoning recorded in the appellate order that a duly executed contract was never placed on record, the same is ill-founded for more that one reason, firstly that there is no consideration by the appellate authority on the finding of fact that third son of the landlord was unemployed. The establishment of the petroleum product retail outlet was only as one of the measures which, the son of the landlord could have taken to establish himself. Even in the absence of any contract, once it is established that the son of the landlord was unemployed, the conditions for release were satisfied, as such, the order passed by the appellate court cannot be upheld and the same is quashed. The order passed by the prescribed authority on 15.09.2012 is upheld. The opposite parties are directed to vacate the premises within a period of four months from today. 8. Both the writ petition stand allowed. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 VNP/- Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench