S.D. Agarwal, J. - (1.) Before admission, notices were issued, Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) The petition is directed against an order passed by the court below releasing the accommodation in favour of the respondent No. 3. The application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority. Against the said order, an appeal a filed by the petitioner. In appeal, the petitioner did not challenge the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority as regards the bonafide need nor in regard to the comparative hardship. The only technical point, which was taken up by the petitioner was that when the property was let out to him, the property had come under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, and, as such, it could have been let out only by virtue of an allotment order. Since no allotment order had been made, he is not a tenant in the eye of law, and, as such, the application under Section 21 of the Act was not maintainable. This defence taken up by the petitioner is wholly mischievous. He cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold in the same breath. He entered into an agreement with respondent No. 3 and took the property from the petitioner on rent for a period of two years, and, as held by the Prescribed Authority, he promised to vacate the premises after two years.;