- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Coun sel for the petitioner. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 6-9-2000 whereby objection filed by the petitioner in the execution proceedings of the order dated 29-11-1997 passed in release application filed under Section 21 (l) (a) of the U. P. Urban Build ings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act has been dismissed by the Prescribed Authority.
(2.) IT appears that the contesting Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 applied for release of the building in question under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. The said application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority after contest on 29-11-1997. Challenging the validity of the said order an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority. The appeal was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 17-2-2000. There after the petitioner approached this Court and filed Writ Petition No. 26081 of 2000. The said petition was also dismissed on 25-5-2000. The operative portion of the said judgment is quoted below:- "from the copy of the order-sheet referred to above placed by the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents, it is clear that petitioner adopted delaying tactics before the Courts below. On this score also it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No other point raised or pressed. Writ petition lacks merit. Writ petition fails and accordingly dis missed. No costs. " The judgment and order passed by this Court has become final as no appeal was filed against the said judgment. Landlords, thereafter put the aforesaid release order in execution. The petitioner in the said proceedings raised objection contending that the number of the house is 43/168 and not 43/168-B, therefore, the order was not liable to be executed. The Prescribed Authority, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perus ing the material on the record, dismissed the objection raised by the petitioner by judgment and order dated 6: 9-2000. Hence, the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the number of house in dispute was 43/168 and not 43/168-B, therefore, the order dated 29-11-1997 was not executable. The Court below has acted illegally in dismissing the objection filed by the petitioner. The impugned order was, therefore, liable to be quashed.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Coun sel appearing for the contesting respon dent submitted that in the proceedings under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act, con troversy regarding the number of house was not raised. The petitioner is in occupa tion of the house in question and their existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, which was not dis puted, therefore, at this stage, it is not open to the petitioner to take up the controversy regarding the number of the house in dis pute. The writ petition was, therefore, li able to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties.;