Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 24.3.1984 passed by the respondent No. 2 (appellate authority), whereby appeal of the respondent No. 1, landlord, under section 22 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter the Act) was allowed and order of the prescribed authority rejecting release application was set aside, directing eviction of the petitioner. The dispute relates to a portion of house No. 118/500, Kaushal Puri, Kanpur, which was in the tenancy of the petitioner and respondent No. 1 is the landlady. The landlady filed an application for release of the premises on the ground that she required the same for herself and her family members. The application was contested by the petitioner. The prescribed authority vide order dated 10.7.1979 rejected the application of the landlady, holding that she had no bona fide need. Landlady filed an appeal under section 22 of the Act, which was registered as Appeal No. 282 of 1979. The appellate authority vide judgment dated 24.3.1984 held that the need set up by the landlady was bona fide in view of the size of the family and that no hardship will be caused to the tenant -petitioner, as he was a single person residing alone. The only contention raised by the petitioner in appeal was that he is very old man and could not be disturbed according to Rule 16(b) of the 1972 Rules. The appellate authority held that no hardship would be caused and, accordingly, allowed the release application. Aggrieved by the said judgment the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the petition, the sole petitioner died and was substituted by his only son, Mahesh. Further on behalf of the petitioner it has been alleged in paragraphs 8, 9 and 14 of the rejoinder -affidavit that the sons of the landlady have acquired separate properties and are residing therein and, therefore, the need set up by the landlady has vanished. I have heard Sri P.C. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Despite the cause list having been revised, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent -landlady.
(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there has been subsequent acquisition of the residential accommodation by the sons of the landlady. The subsequent events and development should be taken on record and on its basis it should be held that the need of the landlady stands satisfied. On the other hand, in view of the finding recorded by the appellate authority that the only stand taken by the petitioner was that he was a very old person and he was living alone and the tenant -petitioner has died during the pendency of the petition. In view of the subsequent events having taken place, as brought on record, I think it appropriate to remand the matter to the appellate authority with a direction to afford the parties opportunities to furnish the evidence with regard to the subsequent development and decide the matter afresh after considering the same. In view of the above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.3.1984 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority to decide the matter afresh in view of the above observations made with regard to the subsequent developments having taken place. The appeal may be decided within 4 months, if possible.;