R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.5.1981 passed by the Prescribed Authority releasing the building in question in favour of the landlord and the order dated 29.4.2000 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners and partly allowing the appeal filed by the landlord.
(2.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) for short, "the Act"' for release of the shop in dispute as he wanted to settle one of his sons in business. It was stated that the need for the shop in question was bona fide and in case the application was rejected, respondent No. 3 would suffer comparatively greater hardship. Release application was objected to and opposed by the petitioners contending that the need of the landlord was neither bona fide nor genuine. It was asserted that he had sufficient accommodation in his possession in which he could settle his son in business, therefore, in the case of rejection of the application, there was no question of any hardship to him. Parties produced evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their cases. The building in question was also inspected by the Prescribed Authority who submitted the report which formed part of the record. The Prescribed Authority after going through the entire material on record released the shop in dispute by order dated 30.5.1981 and an amount Rs. 3000 was awarded as compensation to the outgoing tenant. Challenging the validity of the said order, two appeals were filed, one by the petitioners against the release order and the other by the landlord against order awarding compensation to the tenant. Both the appeals were I allowed by the Appellate Authority by its judgment and order dated 19.12.1981. I Challenging the validity of the said order, Writ Petition No. 3461 of 1982 I was filed by the landlord. The said writ petition was ultimately allowed I and the case was remanded to the Appellate Authority for decision afresh. I The operative portion of the judgment and order passed by this Court [ dated 17.11.1998 reads as under "The question as to whether such accommodation is suitable for carrying I on business by the landlord's son is to be examined. This depends I upon the extent of business, the nature of business and all relevant I factors. As the matter has not been properly appreciated and considered K in law, the impugned order dated 19.12.1981 passed by respondent I No. 1 is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to decide I the appeal afresh keeping in view the observation made above I and in accordance with law. As the landlord had filed an application 1 in the year 1981 and almost 18 years passed, respondent No. 1 [ is directed to decide the appeal within three months from the date production of a certified copy of this order. Considering facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their costs."
(3.) On remand the petitioners by means of an affidavit brought to [ the notice of the Appellate Authority events happened subsequent to the I order passed by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority after K taking into consideration the entire material on record recorded findings I on question of bona fide need and comparative hardship against the petitioners and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners by its judgment I and order dated 29.4.2000, while the appeal filed by the contesting I respondent No. 3 was allowed in part and the amount of compensation was reduced from Rs. 3,000.00 to Rs. 1,500.00. Hence, the present petition.;