Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) LIST is revised. No one is present for the landlord respondent. On 15.12.2005 after recording the statement of learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner that landlord -respondent had sold the house in dispute, it was directed that Sri Atul Dayal learned Counsel for the landlord -respondent No. 1 should seek instruction from his client. This writ petition by the tenant arises out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord -respondent No. 1 Ajai Kumar Gupta on the ground of bona fide need under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Release application, which was registered as rent case No. 103 of 1989 was allowed by the prescribed authority/Additional JSCC, Kanpur Nagar through judgment and order dated 23.6.1990. Against the judgment and order of the prescribed authority a restoration application was filed. Prescribed authority rejected the restoration application on 5.10.1990 on the ground that order dated 23.6.1990 was passed on merit. Order dated 5.10.1990 is under challenge in this writ petition. Order dated 23.6.1990 has also been challenged in this writ petition.
(2.) AS landlord has sold the property in dispute hence release matter has become infructuous. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders are set aside. Prescribed authority need not rehear the matter. Release application stands dismissed.
(3.) I have held in Khursheeda v. A.D.J. : 2004 (55) ALR 586, that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act, Writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent.;