- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. In this case since counter and rejoinder affidavits were filed by the parties. On the request made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the peti tion was directed to be heard finally. It was on 29-8-96, the writ petition was allowed and the operative portion of the judgment was dictated in the open Courts which reads as under: "the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-Vth, Kanpur, dated 17-9-94 is quashed. The case is sent back to the respon dent No. 3 for decision afresh in the light of the observations made above. The case will be decided within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before the respondent No. 3. Till then the respondent No. 2 shall not be dispossessed from the premises in question. "
(2.) I hereunder state the reasons for the above noted order: By means of this petition this petitioner prayed mainly for the following reliefs: (i) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17-9- 94; (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay a suitable and adequate amount by way of penalty of compensation for having initiated frivolous proceeding under Sec tion 23 of the Act and for withholding the pos session of the accommodation beyond 31-3-1994; (iii) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing him to execute the orders passed under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act in favour of the petitioner forthwith and without any delay; (iv) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the plaint in Civil Suit No. 531 of 1994, Smt. Sudesh Tulwar v. Shanti Devi, pending in the Court of Munsif City, Kanpur. The facts, which are relevant for resolving controversy involved in the case, are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 21 (l) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII), for short the Act for release of the building No. 68/25, Lukman Mohal, Kan-pur (hereinafter referred to as the building in question) against respondent No. 1. The building in question was taken on rent, before 1976 for running the business in the name and style M/s. Shakti Metals by Sri Moti Lai claimed himself to be the sole proprietor of the said firm. Since the build ing in question was needed for the petitioner's personal use and occupation the release application was filed. The respondent No. 1 contested the release application, and filed his written state ment on 24-4-1987. In support of their respective cases the parties adduced evidence in the said case. The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application byitsjudgmentand order dated 28-9- 1988. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the respondent No. l filed Rent Appeal No. 54 of l986.
(3.) DURING pendency of the aforesaid rent appeal the respondent No. 1 entered into compromise on 6-2- 1991 with the petitioner and agreed to vacate the build ing in question subject to the condition that he was permitted to occupy the same by 31st March, 1994. The petitioner granted requisite time to the respondent No. 1 and ultimately an application was filed before the Appellate Authority for deciding the appeal in terms of com promise. On the basis of the said applica tion the appeal was directed to be decided in terms of compromise. On the strength of the aforesaid compromise and the order passed by the appellate authority, the respondent No. 1 continued to remain in possession of the building in question till 1994. On expiry of the time granted by the Court to vacate the building in question, the building was not vacated by the respondent No. 1. The petitioner, therefore, was obliged to file an application under Section 23 of the Act, for execution of the release order as con firmed by the appellate authority. The said case was registered as Misc. Case No. 1/23 of 1994. The respondent No. 1 did not contest the said rase but apparently set up his wife Smt. Sudesh Talwar, opposite party No. 2 to oppose the application filed by the petitioner,;