A.K.Yog, J. - (1.) Present petition arises out of the impugned Judgment and order dated 11.1.2002, Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the prescribed authority, rejected objections filed by the tenant-petitioners (paper No. 28 and 9C) primarily on the ground that property has been declared as an evacuee property after notice to the parties in question on 25.1.2001 and 19.3.2001 under Section 23 of the Act (Annexures-5 and 6 to the petition). Without entering into merit or demerits of the proceedings under got initiated apparently at the behest of these present petitioners by ensuring certain complaints by proxy, this petition can be disposed of on a short point as discussed hereinafter.
(2.) Admittedly shop in question was let out by one Ram Prasad (since deceased) through legal representative respondent No. 2 in present petition to the petitioner one Late Hakim Imdad Hussain (since deceased) through legal representative present petitioners. A release application dated 13.2.1989 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was filed, parties were afforded opportunity to plead their cases, file evidence in support thereof. The release application was allowed on 9.8.1991. An appeal under Section 22 of the Act was filed by the tenant. At one stage the said appeal was allowed. Then a Writ Petition No. 6913 of 1993 filed by the landlord which was also allowed vide judgment and order dated 21.4.2000 and the matter was remanded for deciding afresh. Finally the rent appeal under Section 22 of the Act was dismissed on 16.12.2000. The present petitioner challenged the said judgment and order dated 16.12.2000 by filing W.P. No. 1001 of 2001, Smt. Shamim Begum and Ors. v. Prescribed Authority, Bareilly and Ors. The said writ petition was heard and decided after hearing learned counsel for the parties by learned single Judge vide Judgment and order dated 10.1.2001. The relevant extract of the said judgment reads : The learned counsel for the petitioner further urge that certain subsequent events have taken place and therefore, the order of release which was passed in the year 1991 shall not hold good. This aspect of the matter was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Kamleshwar Prasad v. Pradumanju Agarwal, 1997 (1) ARC 627, in which it was held that the order of the appellate authority is final and the said order is a decree of the civil court and a decree of a competent court having become final cannot be disturbed either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India and subsequent events cannot be looked into by writ court. In view of the above decisions I feel that it is not a fit case requiring interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The concurrent findings recorded by the courts below do not suffer from any infirmity. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. After passing the said order Sri Pramod Kumar Jain learned counsel for the petitioners urged that some reasonable time may be allowed to the petitioners to make alternative arrangement and to vacate the disputed accommodation which has been released. Sri Pankaj Naqvi learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to it, Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. I feel that it would be in the interest of Justice if the petitioners-tenant are allowed time to vacate the disputed accommodation positively by 15th October, 2001. During this period of extension from 1st January, 2001 to 15th October, 2001. the petitioners shall pay the enhanced rent/damages for the period aforesaid at the rate of Rs. 130 per month. This amount shall be deposited by the petitioners in advance by 31st March. 2001. In case the petitioners do not deposit the amount aforesaid by the date fixed and do not deliver the vacant possession of the premises in question by 15th October, 2001, the landlord shall be entitled to enforce the order of release according to law."
(3.) In spite of time being prayed on behalf of petitioners through their counsel and having been allowed by the learned single Judge to the effect that the disputed accommodation be released in favour of the landlord on certain terms and conditions contained in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 10.1.2001, the said Judgment of the High Court was sought to be challenged by filing S.L.P. No. 4989 of 2001. Shamim Begum and Ors. v. Bishambhar Nath and Ors., and the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India under following order : "On the application of learned counsel for the petitioners, the special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn.";