- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 30-11-1998 passed by the prescribed authority releasing the disputed accom modation in favour of the landlord-Respondent No. 3 and the order of the appellate authority dated 8-9-1999 affirm ing the said order in appeal.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed an applica tion for release of the disputed accom modation with the allegations that he was in Government service and was provided with a Government accommodation. He retired from service in December, 1997. He requires the disputed accommodation for residential purposes which is under the tenancy of the petitioners. The prescribed authority allowed the application on the finding that Respondent No. 3 was a Government ser vant and was provided with a Government accommodation but had to vacate on retirement. This order has been affirmed by the appellate authority. I have heard Sri R. P. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pranav Mukerji, holding the brief of Sri VD. Ojha, learned Counsel for the con testing respondents.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners contended that Respondent No. 3 has obtained House No. 11/18 situate in Mohalla Panna Lal Compound, Sadar Bazar, Jhansi and as he has obtained the possession of an accommodation, the application filed by the landlord under Section 21 (1-A) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) is not maintainable. Respondent No. 3 is prepared to give pos session of the said house to the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the said building there is tiled roof and it requires replacement by a slab roof. The petitioners can get repaired or replace roof by slab construction and make necessary repairs required for residential purposes at their own costs.;