Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) T h e petitioners are tenants of a residential house. Sri Satish Chandra and Sri Mahesh Chandra, the two brothers, were landlords of the same. The landlords filed an application under Section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act) with the allegation that the building is in dilapidated condition and requires reconstruction after demolition. This application was partly allowed on 10.10.1978 and it was held that south-eastern portion of the building is in dilapidated condition. Both sides filed appeals, which were dismissed on 22.9.1979. The landlords filed Writ Petition No. 10346 of 1979 (the earlier writ petition) against these orders, which was disposed of on 6.1.1984. This Court held that : 1. The north-eastern portion was also not in good condition and the entire building should be demolished.
(2.) The south-eastern portion of building be reconstructed and possession of the same to be given to tenants first. 4. The landlords could demolish the remaining portion of the building and reconstruct it. 2. There was partition between the landlords, namely, Sri Satish Chandra and Sri Mahesh Chandra. A partition suit was also filed and was decreed. In this decree, the premises in dispute fell in share of Sri Satish Chandra (the contesting respondent). He filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for the release of the premises in dispute. This application was allowed on 31.7.1990. The petitioners filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 11.3.1991. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 8357 of 1991 (first writ petition) against these decisions. In this case, they also obtained an interim order on 21.3.1991 staying their eviction.
(3.) The landlords started proceedings for demolition of the building in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 6.1.1984 in the earlier writ petition. The prescribed authority passed an order on 4.9.1991 directing the petitioners to handover the possession of the premises in dispute in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 6.1.1984. The petitioners have filed Writ Petition No. 26032 of 1991 (the second writ petition) against the order of prescribed authority dated 4.9.1991 and have obtained a stay order. Points for Determination;