R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) THESE two petitions arise out of the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for short 'the Act'. Writ petition No. 34639 of 1992 is treated as the leading case. The dispute relates to a residential building i.e. House No. 32/1, Chhipi Tola, Agra. An application for release of the said building in his favour was filed by respondent No. 3, for his personal use and occupation before the Prescribed Authority. The said release application was opposed by respondent No. 4, who was the tenant of the said building. Petitioners were impleaded in the said case on an application filed by them, who claimed that they were the tenants in their own rights and that respondent No. 3 had no right to get the building in question released in his favour.
(2.) THE Prescribed Authority was pleased to hold that the petitioners were not the tenants of the building in question as claimed by them but the respondent No. 4 Shri Kunwar Bahadur Jain was the tenant of respondent No. 3 in the said building. The Prescribed Authority after considering the evidence on the record also recorded the finding that the need of respondent No. 3 - -Landlord was bonafide and genuine. While dealing with the question of comparative hardship it was observed that since the petitioners were not the tenants in the building in question in their own rights, there was no question of any hardship to then in the event the same was released and that if the release application was rejected, the Landlord - -Respondent No. 3 would suffer comparatively greater hardship. Having recorded the said finding one room of House No. 32/1, Chhipi Tola, Agra, was released in favour of the respondent No. 3 by the Prescribed Authority by its judgment and order dated 14.6.1986. The operative portion of the said order is quoted below: - - Against the aforesaid order passed by the Prescribed Authority two appeals were filed i.e. one by the petitioners and the other by respondent No. 3. The appellate authority reversed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority regarding the status of the petitioners. It was held that they had become the tenants of the building in question by acquiescence of respondent No. 3 as they continued in occupation of the building in question without let on hindrance by the respondent No. 3 since 1961. However, findings recorded on the bonafide need and hardship, by the Prescribed Authority in favour of respondent No. 3, were affirmed by the appellate authority and both appeals were dismissed by its judgment and order dated 9.9.1992.
(3.) THEREAFTER the petitioners have filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34689 of 1992 while respondent No. 3 filed writ petition No. 1104 of 1993. Both petitions were connected and were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.;