Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pankaj Srivastava holding brief of Sri Satish Chaturvedi appearing for contesting respondent No. 2. The facts are that the petitioners/landlord filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of the Act No. XIII of 1972 for the release of the 1st floor of the house in dispute. The Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 9.7.1991 allowed the application and the tenanted accommodation was released in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved tenant/respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the appellate authority. During the pendency of the appeal the petitioners/landlord brought on record the facts that tenant has purchased land from Ganpati Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited in Mauja Dadi Pargna Arail Tehsil Karchhana District Allahabad and constructed a house thereon and has shifted therein. The appellate authority without considering the fact that tenant has already constructed house and has shifted therein, allowed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved petitioners/landlord approached this Court by instant writ petition.
(2.) DURING the course of argument Sri Pankaj Srivastava holding brief of Sri satish Chaturvedi appearing for the tenant/respondent No. 2 made a statement that his client has already vacated the premise in dispute and handed over the possession to the landlord/petitioners. The facts that tenant has constructed his own house and shifted therein has been illegally ignored by the appellate authority. In view of the aforesaid fact the release application filed by the petitioners/landlord was liable to be allowed. However, the Appellate Court wrongly and illegally dismissed the same.
(3.) CONSIDERING the facts that tenant has constructed his own residential house and in view of the statement made by the learned Counsel appearing for him that he has already vacated and handed over the possession of the disputed accommodation to the landlord/petitioners, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.;