S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) This writ petition was filed by the landlord whose release application under Section 21 (1) (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 seeking release of the property in dispute which was a shop had been rejected by both the Courts below. Writ petition was allowed ex parte on 20.4.2001 as no one had appeared on behalf of the tenant on the said date. The operative portion of the judgment dated 20.4.2001 is quoted below : "In the conspectus of above discussion, quashing the orders dated 21.8.1989 and 7.2.1991 passed by the two Courts below, the tenanted accommodation, therefore, is hereby released in favour of the landlord on the following conditions : (i) that the petitioner-landlord shall reconstruct the building after demolition positively by 31st of October, 2001; (ii) he shall construct a shop of a suitable size, on the ground floor, for being provided to the legal heirs of the respondent-tenant; and (iii) the possession of the newly constructed shop on the ground floor shall be delivered to the tenant-respondent positively on or before 1.11.2001. The rent of the new shop shall be fixed as per the agreement/settlement between the parties and in the event of any dispute on the point, it shall be determined accordingly to law. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of."
(2.) Thereafter an application was filed on 3.9.2001. During pendency of writ petition original tenant had died on 9.2.1993 and an application for bringing on record his legal representatives had been filed. It appears that legal representatives had also died few months before the judgment i.e., 25.1.2001. Application dated 3.9.2001 was filed by legal representatives of deceased Naresh Prakash. In the affidavit it was also stated that in pursuance of order dated 20.4.2001 applicants were dis-possessed on 13.7.2001 and shop in dispute was demolished on 14 7.2001. The prayer in the application was that landlord should be restrained from transferring the land and remaining part of the shop in dispute and applicants might be permitted to reconstruct the shop at the cost of the landlord. On 3.11 2001 landlord also filed application for extension of time. Thereafter legal representatives of the tenant filed another application on 6.12.2001 for recalling the order dated 20.4.2001 and for dismissing the writ petition as abated.
(3.) In the application for extension of time filed by the landlord it was stated that landlord had obtained possession on 13.7.2001 and had demolished the construction however, in respect of adjoining shop in possession of another tenant landlord had also filed release application which was dismissed and appeal was pending and unless the said shop was also vacated, landlord should not be compelled to reconstruct the shop in dispute. Through supplementary affidavit filed on 13.2.2006 on behalf of landlord it has further been stated that against the other tenant release application was allowed in appeal, however, in Writ Petition No. 6538 of 2002, Girish Chandra v. Prescribed Authority and others, eviction of tenant from the said shop had been stayed through order dated 11.2.2002.;