Rakesh Sharma, J. - (1.) Heard Sri M.S. Kotwal, learned counsel forthe petitioner-landlord and Sri Umesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1.
(2.) At the outset, it is relevant to mention that this petition is one of the oldest rent control matters pending in this Court since 25.5.1984. As per order-sheet of the case, it was finally heard on three occasions and remained a part-heard matter from 4.9.1997. to 8.9.1998. Later on, it was released and by order dated 17.2.2001 of Hon'ble the Senior Judge, it was laid before the Bench for hearing. The matter was finally heard on 9.9.2003 and 10.9.2003 and the writ petition Was allowed on 1.1.2003 quashing the impugned judgments and orders. On 19.12.2003, however, a new counsel was engaged by respondent No. 1 and he made an application (C.M. Application No. 1570 of 2003) seeking recall of the said judgment and order passed dated 1.10.2003 on the ground that the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 was not available to argue the matter when the same was finally heard. On the said application, Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice passed orders on 8.9.2004 directing the case to be laid before the appropriate Bench, as indicated in the order. After passing through 2-3 Benches, the matter was finally laid before the same Bench, which had finally disposed of the matter and allowed the petition on 1.10.2003. This application for recall of the said judgment and order dated 1.10.2003 thus remained pending for a long time. The same was ultimately allowed on 1.10.2005. The judgment and order dated 1.10.2003 was recalled and the case was restored to its original number. It is noteworthy that the said judgment and order of the Court passed on 1.10.2003 was recalled at the instance of respondent No. 1 Smt. Phool Mati Devi. The petitioners counsel was aggrieved by this order dated 10.8.2005, hence he filed a formal application for recalling the said order. However, this application was not pressed by Sri M.S. Kotwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and the same was accordingly rejected on 17.5.2006. The Court fixed the case for final hearing. Since this writ petition was presented in Court on 24.5.1984 and the litigation was still alive, it was in the interest of justice to dispose it of expeditiously without allowing unnecessary adjournments. It was fixed for hearing on 17.5.2006. On 18.5.2006, the matter was heard and arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner were concluded but the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No. 1 remained inconclusive, hence the case was ordered to be listed on 22.5.2006 for arguments of respondents counsel. On that date, the respondents counsel was on sanctioned leave; the case was then listed on 7.7.2006 and finally on 20.7.2006. the arguments of learned counsel for the parties were heard and concluded, and the judgment was reserved.
(3.) The petitioner, through this petition, has assailed the two orders one passed on 26.9.1983 by the Prescribed Authority (Rent Control), Lucknow, appointed under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act XIII 1972, rejecting the release application and the subsequent order dated 13.3.1984. passed by the revisional Court i.e. Special Judge, Lucknow dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner against the said order of Prescribed Authority.;