Satya Prakash Srivastava, J. - (1.) IN the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 3 under Section 21(1 -A) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 seeking release of the residential accommodation in dispute which was under the tenancy of the petitioners the application for which was filed in the year 1984, the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2 vide its judgment and order dated 8 -8 -86, while allowing the said application granted one month's time to the tenant -petitioners to vacate the premises. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority releasing the accommodation in dispute, the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 22 of the aforesaid Act which was dismissed by the Appellate Court, respondent No. 1 vide the judgment and order dated 12 -4 -89 whereunder the order passed by the Prescribed Authority was upheld. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioners have now approached this Court seeking reversal of the impugned orders. The landlord -respondent No. 3 has put in appearance in the case and has filed a counter -affidavit. The petitioners have, in reply, filed a rejoinder -affidavit. Besides, the aforesaid affidavits, the petitioners have filed a supplementary rejoinder -affidavit and in reply thereto a supplementary counter -affidavit has been filed by the landlord. On 19 -7 -89 the Counsel for the parties had jointly stated that they agreed that the writ petition may be heard and finally decided at the admission stage.
(2.) WHEN this case was taken up on 22 -4 -92 the Counsel for the parties have again jointly requested that this case be decided finally at the admission stage. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case in which the writ petition may be finally disposed off at this very stage under the second proviso to Rule 2(1) of the Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court. It is admitted to both the parties that the landlord was employed in the Ministry of Railway, New Delhi and was residing in a Government accommodation provided to him in a public building. He had to retire from the post held by him on 31 -3 -85 and on account of the cessation of his employment he had to vacate the aforesaid public building which he had got in connection with his service in Ministry of Railways. It is admitted to both the parties that the respondent No. 3 has retired from the Government service and that during the pendency of the appeal before respondent No. 1 he had vacated the public premises after retirement.
(3.) THE application for release in the present case, had been filed by the respondent No. 3 seeking benefits available under Section 21(1 -A) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Before respondent No. 1 two questions had been raised by the petitioners which were as to whether the respondent No. 3 was the owner/landlord of the property in dispute and whether the application under Section 21(1 -A) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was a mala fide one.;