S.P. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 7.8.2000 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) passed by the Prescribed Authority, Meerut and the judgment and order dated 5.10.2002 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 15 (Appellate Authority), Meerut. The dispute relates to a shop being shop No. 120 (New No. 62), Purava Karmat Ali Kaiserganj, Meerut city (hereinafter referred to as "the disputed shop"). It appears that earlier a released application under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (In short "the Act") was filed by the respondent No. 3 against Kallu (Predecessor -in -interest of the petitioners), who was the tenant of the disputed shop, and the same was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 12.2.1993 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Meerut. The appeal against the said judgment and order dated 12.2.1993 was filed, and the same was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority by its judgment and order dated 26.3.1997 (Annexure No. 4 to the Writ Petition).
(2.) THEREAFTER , the respondent No. 3 filed the present release application under section 21(1)(a) of the Act in respect of the disputed shop against the petitioners, who inherited the tenancy right in respect of the disputed shop after the death of the said Kallu. The present release application was filed on 12.10.1998 i.e. after the expiry of one year from the date of the said judgment and order dated 26.3.1997 passed by the Appellate Authority in the earlier release proceedings. The present release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 100 of 1998. It was inter alia, alleged in the present release application that the respondent No. 3 required the disputed shop for settling his son, namely, Mohit Kumar in business of Hardware, Mobil Oil and Grease. The present release application was contested by the petitioners.
(3.) EVIDENCE was led by both the sides in support of their respective cases in the present release case, namely, P.A. Case No. 100 of 1998.;