Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) This is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by them against tenant-respondent No. 2 Vijay Kumar on the ground of bona fide need under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of Case No. 12 of 1987 on the file of Prescribed Authority/Munsif, Rampur. Property in dispute is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 25/- per month. Release application was filed by three landlords who are petitioners in this writ petition. In the release application, it was stated that shop in dispute was required for Mukesh Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar, sons of petitioner-landlord No. 1 Ved Prakash Gupta. Prescribed Authority found the need of the landlord to be bona fide and decided the question of comparative hardship in favour of the landlord. Consequently, release application was allowed through judgment and order dated 20.3.1989. Against the said judgment and order respondent No. 2, filed Rent Appeal No. 20 of 1989. Before the Appellate Court, landlords filed some affidavits stating therein that some new shops had been constructed in the form of market and tenant could very well take any of the said shops. Tenant also filed affidavit stating therein that Sanjiv Kumar one of the sons of landlord-petitioner No. 1 had joined some job with Jolly video-trinics.
(2.) Appellate Court also observed that before the Trial Court/prescribed authority tenant had filed application for cross-examination of some of the witnesses of landlord, which was wrongly rejected. The Appellate Court therefore remanded the matter to prescribed authority for reconsideration of the entire matter taking into consideration the subsequent events also. Appellate Court also held that opportunity to cross-examine should be provided to the tenant. Regarding opportunity of cross-examination, Appellate Court has wrongly stated that application for cross-examination was filed by the tenant. It was actually filed by the landlord before the prescribed authority. Normally release application is to be decided on the basis of position prevailing on the date of filing of the release application. However, subsequent event if it is of such nature that it completely eclipses the need of the landlord or completely eclipses the hardship of the tenant then it can be taken into consideration.
(3.) Through counter-affidavit in this writ petition some more subsequent events were brought on record.;