S.U.KHAN, J. - (1.) THIS is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings filed by Ved Prakash Jaiswal, respondent No. 6 and Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, the petitioner, against respondents No. 3 to 5 Krishna Kumar Singh and others, the tenants. Release application was filed on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 22 of 1979 before Prescribed Authority/J.S.C.C. Allahabad. Accommodation in dispute consists of three rooms on the ground floor in which tenants were carrying the business of Typing Institute. It was stated that the accommodation in dispute was required for occasional residence of family of the petitioner who was in service at that time and posted out side Allahabad. It was also stated that building in dispute was also required for establishing/expanding Typing Institute run by the other applicant -landlord Ved Prakash Jaiswal as the accommodation in which he was running the said Institute was quite insufficient. The Prescribed Authority through judgment and order dated 31 -1 -1983 (or 31 -3 -1983) rejected the release application. Against the said judgment and order both the landlords filed appeal -being Rent Appeal No. 231 of 1983. A.D.J. VIth Allahabad through judgment and order dated 11 -7 -1989 allowed the appeal in part. Release application of the landlords was allowed in part and one of the three rooms was released in favour of the landlords. Appellate Court found the need of the landlords to be bona fide. However, it held that Krishna Kumar, respondent No. 3 had opened shop of selling T.V. sets, hence he also deserved some accommodation.
(2.) AGAINST the said judgment of the Appellate Court dated 11 -7 - 1989 this writ petition has been filed by the landlord. Tenants also challenged the said order through Writ Petition No. 16128 of 1089. Said writ petition was dismissed on 4 -7 -2003 in default. Earlier, arguments of the learned Counsel for the landlord - petitioner in this writ petition were heard on 9 -8 -2005. On that date no one had appeared on behalf of tenant -respondents. The name of his Counsel Sri Piyush Agarwal had also not been printed in the cause list. Due to this reason on 7 -11 -2005 the petition was directed to be listed for further hearing alongwith Writ Petition No. 16128 of 1989 showing the name of Sri Piyush Agarwal also. Arguments were again heard on 7 -12 -2005. On the said date Sri Piyush Agarwal made the following statement, which was recorded in the order -sheet: It has been stated on behalf of Sri Piyush Agarwal learned Counsel who was appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 16128 of 1989 (dismissed in default on 4 -2 -2003) that he contacted his client and his client intimated him that he was not interested in the premises in dispute as he had sold the same. Probably by saying this the tenant meant that he was sold the business because the tenant cannot sell the tenanted accommodation. List revised. No one appears for the respondent. Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Judgment again reserved.” After giving the said statement Sri Piyush Agarwal withdrew from the case hence after hearing the learned Counsel for the landlord judgment was reserved.
(3.) IN view of the above statement of learned Counsel for tenants it is quite clear that now tenants have got no concern with the accommodation in dispute, hence there is no question of comparing their hardship. It is not clear as to whether tenants have sold only the business or the accommodation itself. It is quite possible that tenants treating the premises in dispute to be their own sold even the accommodation in dispute. However, in view of the statement of learned Counsel for the tenants recorded in the order dated 7 -12 -2005 it is quite clear that they have parted with the possession unauthorizedly. They have utterly mis - used the release order and the stay order which was granted to them in their writ petition bearing No. 16128 of 1989.;