S. D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) THESE are two petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arising out of proceedings under section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, (U. P. Act XIII of 1972) hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '. Udai Narain Singh is the landlord of the premises. The premises in dispute are No. 111/162-A, Harsh Nagar, Kanpur. Nirmal Kumar Gupta was the tenant of the premises. The premises in dispute are the first floor of this house. This first floor was let out to Nirmal Kumar Gupta in 1969. After Nirmal Kumar Gupta took the property on rent, he was soon transferred to Durgapur and is, at present permanently posted in the Government Fertilizer Factory there. It is also not disputed that he has been provided with an official residential accommodation.
(2.) AFTER the tenant, Nirmal Kumar Gupta, left the premises he handed over the premises to his brothers and his parents. Udai Narain Singh required the accommodation for his personal use and hence he moved an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for release of the said accommodation. The petition was contested through an affidavit filed by the father of the tenant, Nirmal Kumar Gupta. Nirmal Kumar Gupta, at no stage of the proceedings, appeared in the Court either before the Prescribed Authority or before the lower appellate Court. He even did not file the written statement. The written statement was verified by the father of Nirmal Kumar Gupta. During the proceedings under section 21 of the Act an application was made on behalf of the tenant seeking an amendment that the father and the brothers of the tenant should also be joined in the petition. This application for amendment was rejected by the Prescribed Authority. The order of the Prescribed Authority was upheld up to this Hon'ble Court in writ petition no. 1106 of 1981. After failing in this attempt Vinod Kumar Gupta, brother of the tenant, moved an application for impleadment on the ground that he had acquired rights under section 14 of the U. P. Act XIII of 1972. This application was also rejected and ultimately a writ petition was filed in this Court, it being Writ Petition No. 14519 of 1981. This writ petition was dismissed on 15-12-1981.
(3.) AFTER all these interlocutory proceedings were over, the Prescribed Authority considered the matter in detail and by an order dated 21-4-82 dismissed the release application. Against the order dated 21-4-82 an appeal was filed by the landlord, Udai Narain Singh. This appeal was allowed by the appellate Court vide judgment dated 19th April 1983 ; but, only a part of the accommodation was released and not the whole of it. What the Appellate Court did was that a part of the accommodation on the first - floor was given to the landlord and part was to be retained by the tenant and on the second floor also the tenant was given a part of the accommodation. Since both the landlord and the tenant were aggrieved by the operative portion of the order, two writ petitions have been filed against the judgment dated 19-4-83, one by Udai Narain Singh, which is writ petition no. 9061 of 1983 and the other by Nirmal Kumar Gupta, the tenant, which is writ petition no. 6214 of 1983. Since both these petitions arise out of the same judgment, learned counsel for the parties have raised common contentions in both these writ petitions.;