- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Present petition arises out of proceedings under Section 21 (1) (b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, for short, "the Act") and is directed against the judgments and orders dated 21-9-1996 and 22-1-2000 whereby the Prescribed Authority allowed the release application and the Appellate Authority has dis missed the appeal, respectively.
(2.) IT appears that contesting respon dents No. 3 to 5 have filed an application for release of the building in question under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, but subsequently, they have also converted the said petition under Section 21 (l) (b ). On receipt of the notices, petitioners filed objec tion before the Prescribed Authority controverting the facts stated in the release application and asserting that the build ing was not in a dilapidated condition, therefore, the application was liable to be rejected. The parties in support of their cases, produced the evidence, oral and documentary. The Prescribed Authority, after going through the entire evidence, on the record including the orders passed under Section 133 Cr. PC. allowed the release application by its judgment and order dated 21-9-1996. Challenging the validity of the said order, petitioner filed an appeal before the authority below. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority and findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority were affirmed by judgment and order dated 21-2-2000, hence the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the authorities below have acted illegally in allowing the release application relying upon the order under Section 133 Cr. P. C. It is submitted that against the order under Section 133 Cr. P. C. a writ petition No. 25058 of 1994 was filed wherein the opera tion of the impugned order passed under Section 133 Cr. P. C. was stayed by the High Court. This petition was presented before the Joint Registrar on 5th July, 2000 and before this Court on 6-7- 2000 this peti tion was directed to be listed with the other petition, referred to above. The writ petition No. 25058 of 1994 was filed by Kanhaiya Lal, who was died long back, but no steps for the substitution of the heirs of the Kanhaiya Lal have been taken. Consequently, the said petition as against Kanhaiya Lal stood abated and be came incompetent against others. Order passed under Section 133 Cr. P. C has be come final against Kanhaiya Lal. It will also be binding upon others. It is well settled in law that there cannot be two conflicting decrees/orders in the same case. The Writ Petition No. 25058 of 1994 has become in competent. In view of the aforesaid facts, the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the authorities below have acted illegally, in not referring and relying upon the said order cannot be accepted. The judgment and order passed by the' authorities below are concluded by the concurrent findings of fact which are based on relevant evidence on the record. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.
(3.) THE writ petition fails and is dis missed. Record of Writ Petition No. 25058 of 1994 be sent back to the department concerned. Petition dismissed. .;