Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the tenant against the judgment and order dated 23.9.1981 passed by the District Judge, Kanpur in Rent Appeal No. 45 of 1980 Kedar Nath Gupta and others v. Vijai Narain Kapoor, whereby the appeal was allowed and matter was remanded for afresh to the prescribed authority. This writ petition was admitted on 18.12.1981 and interim order was granted staying further proceedings pursuant to the remand order. Despite repeated service the respondent landlord has not put in appearance. It is strange that the landlord has neither put in appearance for the last 24 years. He has neither filed counter affidavit nor has applied for vacating of stay order. Notices were also issued to the heirs in 2004, but still no one has put in appearance. In the circumstances the petition is being heard ex parte. I have heard Sri Bhuneshwar Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE dispute relates to first floor of house No. 4/103 Rajendra Mahal Kanpur. The respondent No. 2 filed a release application under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) setting up the need for himself, which was registered as P.A. Case No. 15 of 1978. The application was contested by the tenant petitioner on various grounds first, that the family settlement arrived at between the member of the family was sham and collusive as it had been set up to oust the petitioner, secondly, there was no need much less bona fide, of the landlord for the premises in dispute. The prescribed authority initially vide judgment dated 11.11.1976 held that there was no bona fide and the tenant petitioner would suffer grater hardship and accordingly rejected the release application. Against the said judgment an appeal was filed being Rent Appeal No. 417 of 1976. This appeal of the landlord was allowed and the matter was remanded to the prescribed authority vide judgment dated 16.5.1977 for fresh hearing after taking further evidence and local inspections. After the remand, the prescribed authority recorded finding that Kedar Nath Gupta (respondent No. 2) was not the landlord of the premises in dispute and, therefore, the application under section 21(1)(a) of the Act was not maintainable and accordingly, the same was rejected vide judgment dated 22.11.1979. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord filed Rent Appeal No. 45 of 1980 before the District Judge, Kanpur. The District Judge, Kanpur vide judgment dated 23.9.1991 held that the application was maintainable and, therefore, remanded the matter to the prescribed authority tor a decision on merits recording findings of bona fide need and comparative hardship.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the same, the tenant filed the present writ petition, in which an interim order was granted staying further proceedings before the prescribed authority pursuant to the remand order for the last 24 years. It appears that either there has been settlement between the landlord and the tenant outside Court or the landlord has applied for a fresh release application setting up his fresh need as required under the provisions of the Act, and the Rules which permit the landlord to file fresh release application after period of one year.;