Pankaj Mithal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri B.K. Srivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dhiraj Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Sri Manish Tandon has appeared for contesting respondents no. 3/1 to 3/3.
(2.) The disputed accommodation is house no. 110/79 Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner is a tenant therein whereas respondents no. 3/1 to 3/3 are its co-owners. They applied for its release under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The release application has been allowed by the Prescribed Authority and the judgment and order has been affirmed by the appellate court.
(3.) The contention of Sri Srivastava is that during the appellate stage the petitioner has moved application along with affidavit stating that the contesting respondents have acquired three other accommodations in a vacant state and as such they no longer need the premises in dispute. He further submits that his application for appointment of commission to inspect the above accommodations and to submit report was illegally rejected and so was the application for accepting the municipal assessments in respect thereof.;