RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) Whether the Prescribed Authority / Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.13, Barabanki was justified in permitting the respondent no.3 to withdraw the application for withdrawl of P.A. Case No.6 of 1999, Mangal Prasad versus Satguru Saran Verma, instituted by the respondent no.3 under section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as '1972 Act'), is the short question to be answered in this writ petition.
(2.) The dispute relates to a shop situated at Mohalla Kanoongoyan, Near Gurmandi, Pargana and Tehsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki of which Sri Mangal Prasad ­ the respondent no.3 is the owner - landlord and Sri Satguru Saran Verma - the petitioner is a tenant. On 29.1.1996, the respondent no.3 moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of 1972 Act, before the Prescribed Authority, for release of the shop in dispute on the ground that he bona fide required the said shop for carrying on his own business. The case was registered as P.A. Case No.6 of 1996. The petitioner filed his written statement controverting the facts stated and the averments made in the said application and contested the claim of the respondent no.3.
(3.) On 1.11.1999, the respondent no.3 moved an application (Kha -43) before the Prescribed Authority stating therein that in view of the averments made in the written statement, the petitioner was a mere licensee, and as such the former had filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barabanki in which 25.11.1999 was the date fixed, and as such the respondent no.3 did not want to prosecute the release application against the petitioner and was withdrawing the same. The Prescribed Authority was requested to permit the respondent no.3 to withdraw the release application. The petitioner filed his objection denying the fact that he was a licensee. It was further stated by the petitioner that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was specifically pleaded by the petitioner that there was no provision under the 1972 Act for withdrawal of an application made under Section 21 of the 1972 Act, and as such the application for withdrawal was liable to be rejected with costs. After the objection was filed by the petitioner, the respondent no.3 did not press the application for withdrawal and an endorsement to that effect was also made on the application for withdrawal moved by him. The Prescribed Authority, thereafter, fixed a date for the evidence of the respondent no.3. On the next date, the respondent no.3 filed his evidence in the form of an affidavit. On 7.12.2004, the petitioner moved an application (Ga -47) stating therein that by moving the application (Kha -43) the respondent no.3 had abandoned his suit and as such the release application was liable to be dismissed. According to the petitioner it was not open to the respondent no.3 to withdraw the application (Kha -43) dated 1.11.1999.;