Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the landlord for quashing the order dated 21.8.1980, passed by the Prescribed Authority declining to release the first floor accommodation of premises No. 118/398 Kaushalpuri, Kanpur. It is further directed against the judgment dated 6.3.1982 passed by the 10th Additional District Judge, Kanpur, whereby the appeal of the tenant in respect of ground floor accommodation of premises No. 118/398, Kaushalpuri, Kanpur was allowed and the order of the Prescribed Authority was set aside. Fact of the case are that the petitioners are owners of the premises No. 118/398, Kaushalpuri, Kanpur. Shyam Lal was tenant of part of the portion of the ground floor and partly of the first floor of the building in dispute. The landlords filed application for release under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 on the ground of bona fide need. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 21.8.1980 allowed the release application in part; whereby the ground floor portion was release in favour of the landlord and the application for release, in so far as it related to the first floor accommodation was rejected. Against the said judgment of the Prescribed Authority two appeals were filed. Rent Appeal No. 305 of 1980 was filed by the landlord seeking further release of the first floor accommodation. The other Rent Appeal No. 284 of 1980 was filed by the tenant in respect of the release of the ground floor accommodation. The appellate authority vide judgment dated 6.3.1982 dismissed the appeal of the landlord i.e. Rent Appeal No. 305 of 1980 and allowed the appeal of the tenant i.e. Rent Appeal No. 284 of 1980. Effect of the appellate judgment was that the release application of the landlord stood totally rejected. Aggrieved by the said judgment the present writ petition has been filed by the landlord.
(2.) I have heard Sri. S.M. Dayal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. A.K. Mehrotra, learned representing respondent No. 3. During the coursed of argument an affidavit has been filed by Ravindra Mohan, No. 1 (tenant) stating that he and other heirs of Shyam Lal i.e. his brother Yatindra Mohan are agreed that the ground floor accommodation will be vacated by them as was directed by the judgment of the Prescribed. Authority dated 21.8.1980 and the possession of the first floor accommodation will remain with them. They are ready to bear the difficulties on account of the vacation of the said room on the ground floor subject to the condition that the landlord petitioners would not create any hindrance obstruction in their use and occupation of the first floor accommodation. In other words the tenant is agreeable to the order passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing part of the release application. Sri. S.M. Dayal, learned Counsel for the petitioners has no objection to the said offer given by the tenant.
(3.) SRI . A.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the respondent, has informed that Ravindra Mohan respondent No. 1 is present in the Court and has stated that he shall hand over the ground floor on or before 31st January, 2005.;