- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. Present petitioner Om Prakash Mittal is the real brother of Respon dent No. 3, Chetan Prakash Mittal. Nanak Chand (father of the petitioner and Respon dent No. 3,w"atheowneroftwoshops includ ing Shop No. 258 in the tenancy of one Atma Ram (father of Raj Kumar-Respondent No. 4) called the shop in question.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY, there was a family set tlement (as also 'held by the two Courts below) and in pursuance to the same the shop in question has fallen in the share of the Respondent No. 3. It has also come on record that the Respondent No. 3, was employed elsewhere and hence the proper ties were looked after in representative capacity by petitioner, Om Prakash Mittal, who used to collect rent of the shop in question, being eldest in the family. Atma Ram, erstwhile tenant having died, Respondent No. 3, filed an application for release under Section 16, U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Let ting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short called the Act', on the ground that Atma Ram had died issueless, hence the tenancy could not devolve upon anybody and the shop was, therefore, vacant. The Delegated Authority dismissed the application vide judgment and order dated 12th October, 1988 (Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition ). Feeling aggrieved, revision under Section 18 of the Act was preferred by Chetan Prakash Mittal, which was dis missed by
(3.) THE THEn District Judge, Ghaziabad vide judgment and order dated 19th May, 1989 (Annexure 4 to THE Writ Petition ). Not being satisfied, Chetan Prakash Mittal filed Writ Petition No. 12246 of 1989 in this Court, which was finally allowed by learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 15th May, 1992. Civil Revision No. 173 of 1988 was restored to its original number and the same was directed to be decided in the light of the objections made in the High Court's judgment (Annexure 5 to the Writ Peti tion ).;