Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) This writ petition filed by the landlord arises out of proceedings for release of the disputed accommodation under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'). The application was contested by the respondent-tenant. On the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, the Prescribed Authority recorded finding with regard to bona fide and genuine need as well as comparative hardship in favour of the petitioners-landlord. However, the application was dismissed on a technical ground that since the tenant-respondent was inducted in the premises in dispute without any order of allotment as such the agreement between them is not enforceable and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Feeling aggrieved, the landlord-petitioners filed an appeal. The appellate Court held that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and set aside the finding of the Prescribed Authority in this regard. The appellate authority after setting aside the finding of the Prescribed Authority on this point further set aside the entire judgment of the Prescribed Authority and remanded the case back to be decided afresh.
(2.) I have heard Sri Manish Goel, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Mittal, Advocate appearing for the respondent.
(3.) It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the tenant-respondent never challenged the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority on question of genuine and bona fide need and comparative hardship hence the said findings became final and the appellate court wrongly remanded the case back to the Prescribed Authority to decide the said issues afresh. It has further been urged that once the appellate authority found that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the application for release filed by the petitioners-landlords ought to have been allowed intoto in the absence of any cross appeal or cross objection against the findings with regard to bona fide need and comparative hardship by the tenant-respondent and the Appellate Court wrongly and illegally remanded the case back. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent has tried to justify the impugned order. It has been contended that since the release application was dismissed as such there was no occasion for the respondent-tenant to challenge the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority on the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship by filing an appeal.;