Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) AGAINST the previous tenant of the property in dispute petitioners landlords filed release application under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge -II, Allahabad which was registered as A.K. Srivastava and two others v. V.P. Choudhary, P.A. No. 110 of 1986. Sri Chaudhary entered into compromise. Prescribed Authority after noting that tenant had admitted the bona fide need of landlord allowed the release application with the rider that the landlords shall not be entitled to let out the building in dispute again in future and shall use the same for personal occupation. Thereafter it appears that certain persons filed application for allotment of the said building. R.C. and E.O. Allahabad where case was registered S.P. Srivastava v. V.K. Srivastava and others Case No. 175 of 1986, held that Dr. Chaudhary had constructed his own house but had not shifted in the said house. In respect of release order under section 21 of the Act in favour of the landlord dated 18.9.1986 R.C. and E.O. held that need of landlord had neither been discussed nor established properly. R.C. and E.O. held that "if this type of compromise is to be allowed then the matter of letting/release will got into the hands of the landlord and tenants themselves and the main purpose of the act solving house problem and controlling letting will be defeated." It appears that R.C. and E.O. was taking to task the prescribed authority for allowing the release application on 18.7.1986 without realizing that he i.e. R.C. and E.O. is merely an executive officer and the Prescribed Authority who decided the release application was judicial officer. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Hiralal Mool Chand Doshi v. Barot Raman Lal Ranchhoddas (dead) by L.Rs. : AIR 1993 SC 1449, that release application can be allowed on the basis of compromise if tenant admits the bona fide need of the landlord. The tone and tenor of order of R.C. and E.O. suggests that he considers possession of the house by the landlord almost indecent.
(2.) AS rider had been provided by the prescribed authority restraining the landlord from letting out the building, hence there was no occasion for the R.C. and E.O. to hear the matter. After getting the house released under section 21 of the Act landlord is not required to get it further released under section 16 of the Act by R.C. and E.O. In proceeding under section 16 of the Act R.C. and E.O. cannot sit in appeal over the judgment passed by Prescribed Authority under section 21 of the Act. Accordingly writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 18.4.1987 declaring the premises in dispute as vacant is set aside.;