R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 24.5.2000 whereby the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority for decision afresh in the light of the observations made in judgment It appears that the petitioners filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, for release of the building in question in their favour. It was pleaded that the need of the petitioners were bona fide and genuine and in case the application was dismissed, they were likely to suffer greater hardship than the hardship of tenant respondent in case the application was allowed. Release application was objected to and opposed by respondent No. 2. During the pendency of the case before the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2 filed an application for amendment of the written statement Said application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by its order dated 14.7.1999. Challenging the validity of the said order, respondent No. 2 filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50415 of 1999, Vinay Kumar Agarwal v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad and others. The said petition was disposed of finally by judgment and order dated 2.12.1999 by this Court. The operative portion of the said judgment is quoted below: During the pendency of the appeal the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the written statement alleging that the property alleged to have been acquired by his wife is non -residential. Respondent No. 1 has rejected the application by order dated 14.7.1999. It is a question of fact as to whether the accommodation acquired by the wife of the petitioner is residential or non -residential. In respect of this, the Appellate Authority is entitled to take additional evidence in the appeal itself and for that no written statement is required. It will be open to the petitioner to lead evidence on this aspect. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of finally.
(2.) THEREAFTER , the Appellate Authority heard the parties and ultimately allowed the appeal in part and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority by the impugned judgment and order dated 24.5.2000. Hence, the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Authority has directed the Prescribed Authority to decide the appeal after taking additional evidence of the parties regarding the nature of the building in question, the Appellate Authority itself could take additional evidence on the aforesaid point, therefore, there was no justification for the Appellate Authority to allow the appeal and remand the case to the Prescribed Authority. The Appellate Authority, on remand, after hearing the parties and perusing the record framed three questions/issues for decision in the appeal, which are as follows:
(3.) APPELLATE Authority after considering the material on record answered the first question and held that the room in question was non -residential building, while considering the second question, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that for decision of the said question/issue, it was necessary to remand the case to the Prescribed Authority. Similarly, while considering issue No. 3 the Appellate Authority held that since remand of the case was necessary for decision on issue No. 2, therefore, for decision of the said issue also case was remanded. This Court did not prohibit the Appellate Authority from remanding the case to the Prescribed Authority. It do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Further, after remand both the parties will have opportunity to produce evidence in support of their case. No prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner by the impugned order. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. It is, however, observed that since the matter is pending since 1995, it would be in the interest of justice that the case is decided expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is communicated to the Prescribed Authority.;