ORDER S.U. Khan, J.
1. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings, initiated by Late Vishwa Nath, respondent No. 1, landlord, under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, on the ground of bona fide need of shop in dispute, registered as P.A. Case No. 37 of 1979. Prescribed Authority/City Munsif, Farrukhabad dismissed the release application by judgment and order dated 14,7.1981. Appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 22 of the Act, being Rent Control Appeal No. 135 of 1981, was allowed by IInd Additional District Judge, Farrukhabad, through Judgment and order dated 15.4.1982. This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid Judgment of the lower appellate court.
2. In the release application, it was stated that the landlord intended to start his business from the shop in dispute alongwith his grandson Krishna Kumar. Krishna Kumar is the son of Rajendra Prasad.
3. During the pendency of writ petition, the landlord Vishwa Nath died on 26.10.1995 and tenant petitioner filed substitution application seeking to implead the two sons of late Vishwa Nath, i.e., Rajendra Prasad and Govind Prasad. Govind Prasad filed counter-affidavit stating therein that Vishwa Nath, his father had executed a will in favour of the Munni Devi, the wife of Govind Prasad, hence, only Munni Devi should be substituted at the place of Vishwa Nath. It appears that in between the parties, a revision being S.C.C. Revision No. 23 of 1988 is also pending. In the said revision at the place of Vishwa Nath, Smt. Munni Devi was substituted. This fact was brought to the notice of this Court through supplementary affidavit filed in substitution application. This Court by order dated 6.8.2002, after taking into consideration the aforesaid facts allowed the substitution application of Smt. Munni Devi, wife of Govind Prasad alone as legal representative of late Vishwa Nath respondent No. 1.
4. Preliminary question to be decided in this writ petition is as to whether after the death of the landlord, the need for his grandson Krishna Kumar S/o Rajendra Prasad can be seen or not. Learned counsel for the tenant petitioner has argued that even if the release order passed by the lower appellate court is taken to be for the benefit of aforesaid Krishna Kumar, the same cannot be maintained as late Vishwa Nath through will bequeathed the shop in dispute neither to Krishna Kumar nor Rajendra Prasad, the father of Krishna Kumar, but to Munni Devi, the wife of Govind Prasad. Munni Devi is aunt (Chachi) of Krishna Kumar, hence, Krishna Kumar does not fall within the definition of family member of Munni Devi. In my opinion, the argument of learned counsel for the tenant petitioner is quite sound. The shop in dispute now belongs to Smt. Munni Devi under the Will executed by Late Vishwanath. Vishwanath, for whose need the shop was sought to be released, is no more. Krishna Kumar grandson of Vishwanath is neither owner nor family member of the owner of the shop in dispute, hence, his need cannot be considered.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Farrukhabad, dated 15.4.1982 passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 135 of 1981, is set aside.
6. However, Smt. Munni Devi is at liberty to file release application either for her own need or for the need of any of her family members.