O.P.Garg, J. - (1.) The dispute relates to premises No. 107/268 Brahma Nagar, Kanpur. Rudra Sen Bajpai-respondent No. 2 had purchased the said house in the year 1977 from one Smt. Rani Devi. The house consisted of two Kotharies and a Khaprall, One of the Kotharies was under the tenancy of Smt. Siromani Devi and the other was under the tenancy of late Dev Singh and the tiled (Khaprall) accommodation was in occupation of Doodh Nath Singh as tenant. Rudra Sen Bajpai. who happens to be a practising Advocate on the criminal side filed a petition for release of the accommodations, aforesaid, under the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Rent. Eviction and Letting) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the purposes of construction of a garage and office, registered as P.A. case No. 820 of 1980. The release petition was dismissed by the learned Prescribed Authority by order dated 27.3.1982. The respondent No. 2 landlord preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act (Rent Appeal No. 156 of 1982) which was partly allowed by order dated 11.4.1983, inasmuch as, Khaprail in occupation of Doodh Nath Singh, tenant was released and in respect of the two other tenants, the appeal was dismissed. The appellate court appeared to be of the view that the landlord may conveniently have his office constructed over the roof of the garage. The landlord filed a Writ Petition No. 9078 of 1983. which has been allowed by this Court by order dated 21.1.2000 whereby the order dated 11.4.1983 passed in appeal was quashed and the XIIIth Additional District Judge was directed to consider the appeal afresh keeping in view the observations made in the body of the decision. Two specific observations were made by this Court in the body of the judgment, firstly, that the appellate authority did not examine the opinion of the Engineer and the report of the Advocate Commissioner, in relation to two other accommodation is respect of which, the release petition was dismissed even though these two accommodations were adjoining to the third one about which release petition was allowed though they were of the same age and secondly, the question whether an Advocate of long standing can suitably and conveniently have his office on the roof of the garage.
(2.) The learned XIIIth Additional District Judge. Kanpur Nagar decided the appeal No. 156 of 1982 afresh by the impugned order dated 9-1.2001. He has found that the need of the landlord to get all the three tenanted accommodations in premises No. 107/268 Brahma Nagar Kanpur was bona fide and that the balance of hardship tilled in his favour and accordingly allowed the release petition. It appears that the tenant Doodh Nath Singh had handed over possession of the tenanted accommodation in respect of which the release application was allowed by the appellate court on 11.4.1983. Smt. Siromani Devi has also not challenged the release order passed in appeal.
(3.) The petitioner is the son of Late Dev Singh, tenant In Kothari at a monthly rent of Rs. 15. After the death of Dev Singh, his legal heirs were impleaded as respondent Nos. 4 to 11 in appeal. Some of the substituted respondents as legal heirs of Dev Singh also died and one of them was married outside the family. Babu Singh. the present petitioner was respondent No. 4 in appeal. He has challenged the order dated 9.1.2001 by filing the present writ, petition.;