MANOJ MISRA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Manish Tandon for the respondents.
(2.) The present petition challenges a remand order dated 3.3.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Revision No. 42 of 2016, under section 18 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, by which the release order dated 27.8.2016 passed in favour of the petitioners was set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
(3.) The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: in respect of the disputed accommodation, an application for release was filed in the year 2010 by the respondents 1 and 2. On the said application, in the year 2012, the accommodation in dispute was declared vacant. Thereafter by order dated 30.8.2012, the accommodation was released in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 against which the tenant filed a review application under section 16(5) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was dismissed against which a revision was preferred by the occupying tenant which was allowed and the matter was remanded back. Thereafter, by order dated 11.8.2016 the premises was declared vacant. In the meantime, in the year 2012, Jai Prakash Srivastava (petitioner no. 1), had also filed a release application for releasing the accommodation in his favour. Thereafter, upon remand, the petitioners Jai Prakash Srivastava, Ramesh Chandra Srivastava and Satish Srivastava, on 26.8.2016, jointly filed a release application for release of the accommodation in question. By order dated 27.8.2016, the release application of the respondents 1 and 2 was rejected and the release application of the petitioners was allowed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer against which the respondents 1 and 2 filed Rent Revision No. 42 of 2016 which has been allowed by the impugned order.;