S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the tenant. It arises out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by late Shakuntla Devi -landlady since deceased and survived by respondent Nos. 3 to 11 under section 21 of U.P. Act. No. 13 of 1972. The premise in dispute is a shop. Release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 48 of 1993, on the file of Prescribed Authority/IInd Additional Civil Judge, Allahabad. The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application through judgment and order dated 6.5.1995. The tenant petitioner filed appeal under section 22 of the Act being Rent Control Appeal No. 185 of 1995. The said appeal has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Allahabad, through judgment and order dated 23.8.2003. This writ petition on behalf of the tenant is directed against the aforesaid judgment of the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority. As far as the question of applicability of the Act through compromise taken in Para. 53 of the writ petition is concerned, it is concluded by an authority of Supreme Court reported in : AIR 1971 SC 2213. Like the present case, in the said authority also facts were similar. Old building was vacated by the tenant under the agreement in between him and the landlord to the affect that building could be demolished and reconstructed and given again to the tenant on rent and U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 would be applicable to the newly constructed building. The Supreme Court held such agreement valid.
(2.) THE concurrent findings of bona fide need and comparative hardship are basically findings of fact however, learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner has very strenuously argued that the shop vacated by one of the tenants of the landlord i.e. Sri Chanchal Kumar Kesarwani is available to the landlords to satisfy their need. Copy of affidavit of Chanchal Kumar Kesarwani was filed by the petitioner before the Lower Appellate Court with permission to adduce the same as additional evidence. The said application was rejected by the Appellate Court on 26.4.1983, against which a writ petition was filed, which was disposed of by me on 7.7.2003 with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said order in case the appeal was ultimately decided against him. Accordingly, in this writ petition the said order has also been challenged. The landlords are represented by Sri Pankaj Mithal, learned Counsel.
(3.) WITHOUT entering into the niceties of procedural law regarding permission to adduce additional evidence, the Court asked the learned Counsel for the landlords to clarify the position with regard to the said allegation. Learned Counsel for the landlords, stated that landlords had filed a suit for eviction of aforesaid Chanchal Kumar Kesarwani who is one of their tenants, before JSCC, Allahabad. The suit was dismissed, against which the landlords have filed a Revision being SCC Revision No. 27/1997, pending before Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Allahabad. In the said Revision Chanchal Kumar Kesarwani filed an affidavit stating therein that he had taken another shop in Mohalla Khuldabad and had shifted to the said shop on 31.3.2003 after actually vacating the shop in suit and delivered physical possession of the said shop to the landlord. The copy of the said affidavit has been filed alongwith this writ petition as part of Annexure 14.;