K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenants' writ petition against the judgment of Shri S. K. Misra, Ist Additional District Judge, Jhansi, dated 8-2-1980, whereby the landlords' appeal was partly allowed.
(2.) OPPOSITE party no. 2, the landlord had applied for release of the shop against the tenants' petitioners. The Prescribed Authority had dismissed the application through its order dated 23-1-1979 on the ground that the second application for release was moved by the landlord which was not maintainable under Rule 18 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Against the judgment of the Prescribed Authority the landlord had filed an appeal which was allowed by the, appellate court through its order dated 8-2-1980. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate Court, the petitioners have approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends before me that the appellate court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in allowing the landlords' application for release in part without paying any heed to Rule 18 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
(3.) NO one appears on behalf of the contesting opposite party. In my opinion the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners have force. Rule 18 sub-clause (2) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 reads as below :- " Where an application of a landlord against a tenant under Section 21 for the release of any building or any specified part thereof or any surplus land appurtenant to such building is rejected on merits and a fresh application on the same ground is made within period of one year from that decision, the Prescribed Authority shall accept the findings in those proceedings as conclusive. " ;