- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. This petition has been filed against the impugned order dated Septcmber9,1999 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) whereby the prescribed authority rejected petitioner- tenant's application under Section 24, U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called 'the Act' ). Section 24 of the Act reads: "24. Option of re-en try by tenant.- (1) Where a building is released in favour of the landlord and the tenant is evicted under Section 21 or on appeal under Sec-lion 22, and the landlord either puts or causes to be put into occupation thereof any person different from the person for whose occupation according to the landlord's representation, the building was required, or permits any such person to occupy it or otherwise puts it to any use other than the one for which it was released, or as the case may be, omits to occupy it within one month of such ex tended period as the prescribed authority may for sufficient cause allow from the date of his obtaining possession or, in the case a building which was proposed to be occupied after some construction or reconstruction, from the date of comple tion thereof or in the case of a building which was proposed to be demolished, omits to demolish it within two months or such extended period as the prescribed authority may for sufficient cause allow from the date of his obtaining possession then the prescribed authority or, as the case may be, the District Judge, may, on an application in that behalf within three months from the date of such act or omis sion, order the landlord to place the evicted tenant in occupation of the build ing on the original terms and conditions, and on such other being made, the landlord and any person who may be in occupation thereof shall give vacant pos session of the building to the said tenant, failing which, the prescribed authority shall put him into possession and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as maybe necessary. (2) Where the landlord after obtaining a release order under clause (b) of sub-section (1, of Section 21 demolishes a building and con structs a new building or buildings on its site. then the District Magistrate may, on an applica tion being made in that behalf by the original tenant within such time as may be prescribed, allot to him the new building or such one of them as the District Magistrate after consider ing his requirement thinks fit, and thereupon that tenant shall be liable to pay as rent for such building as amount equivalent to one per cent per month of the cost of construction thereof (including the cost of demolition of the old building but not including the value of the land and the building shall, subject to the tenant's liability to pay rent as aforesaid, be subject to the provisions of this Act, and where the tenant makes no such application or refuses or fails to lake that building on lease within the time, al lowed by the District Magistrate, or sub sequently ceases to occupy it or otherwise va cates it, that building shall also be exempt from the operation of this Act for the period or the remaining period, as the case may be, specified in sub-section (2) of Section 2. "
(2.) BRIEF facts for the purposes of present petition are that an application under Section 21 (l) (a) of I he Act was filed by the landlords/respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for seeking eviction of the tenant-petitioner from premises No. 99, Jhonstonganj, Allahabad. The said release application was allowed ex-parte vide order dated 12th May, 1997. The landlords obtained possession on the basis of the said release order on 13th December, 1997. Admittedly, as stated in para 5 of the petition, petitioner- tenant had filed an application dated 17th December, 1997 for recalling of the ex-parte release order dated 2nd May, 1997 purported to be under Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was sup ported by an application for condonation of delay. Since considerable time had passed, petitioner-tenant also filed an ap plication under Section 24 of the Act alleg ing that landlord was misusing the release order inasmuch as accommodation in question was not being used for the pur pose for which it was got released. Perusal of the impugned order dated September 9, 1999 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) shows that prescribed authority has been swayed by irrelevant and extraneous considerations while con sidering application under Section 24 of the Act inasmuch as the charge against the petitioner that he had filed said applica tion alter considerable delay has no relevance for deciding the application under Section 24 of the Act. It is natural that an application under Section 24 of the Act has to be filed when (he outgoing tenant misuse the release order.
(3.) IN view of the above, the impugned order dated September 9, 1999 is hereby set aside. The prescribed authority is directed to decide the matter under Sec tion 24 of the Act afresh at the earliest, preferably within three months from the dale of receipt of certified copy of the judgment and order. Writ petition stands allowed, subject to the direction given above. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. .;