Mrs. S. Dikshit, J. - (1.) The short question which falls for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the building in question could have been released by the Prescribed Authority in favour of the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', while proceedings under Section 16 (1) (b) for release of the premises were already pending.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a portion of the building in question-House No. 954/B, Sector 'A', Mahanagar, Lucknow, had been allotted in favour of one Sri M.M.L. Mehra. Sri Mehra was of advanced age and therefore his daughter and son-in-law with their children used to stay with him. The son-in-law was thereafter transferred to Agra and therefore the family shifted to Agra. Sri Mehra who all by himself and was alone also started living with his son-in-law at Agra and shifted his household goods also substantially. The landlords who are petitioners herein, being in need of the premises in question, moved an application under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act before the Additional District Magistrate, Civil Supplies, Lucknow, with the prayer to release the building in the tenancy of Sri M.M.L. Mehra in their favour. The Rent Control Authorities notified the vacancy on 21.11.1983 in respect of the portion under the tenancy of Sri Mehra. The declaration of vacancy was objected to by Sri M.M.L. Mehra and he filed objections, the result being that the application by the petitioner/landlord under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act was not proceeded further. In the aforesaid circumstances the petitioners moved a fresh application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act against Sri Mehra on 18.7.1984 before the Prescribed Authority. This application was not contested by Sri Mehra on merits. However, he filed an application that he should be granted reasonable time upto December, 1984 so that he may vacate the premises. Sri Mehra did not contest that the landlord's need is not bona fide and genuine and so also not pressing. The Prescribed Authority considered the matter and allowed the application of the petitioners under Section 21 of the Act vide its judgment and order dated 29.8.1984 and allowed Sri Mehra to vacate the premises on or by 1.12.1984, Sri Mehra accordingly vacated the premises and the petitioners who are the landlords occupied the same and it is informed that the petitioners are continuing in possession of the said premises.
(3.) The order passed by the Prescribed Authority was never challenged and the petitioners/landlords took the possession of the building under the said final order, therefore, taking themselves to be legal occupants of the premises in question they did not pursue the application which they had filed under Section 16 (1) (b) of the said Act for release of the said building and informed the Additional District Magistrate concerned of the development in the case vide their letter dated 21.11.1984 and prayed that the aforesaid proceedings be consigned to records. The Additional District Magistrate however took a contrary view and passed order dated 1.8.1986 that the proceedings instituted under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act shall continue. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners filed the instant writ petition in the year 1986 when this Court by an interim order stayed further proceedings pending before the Additional District Magistrate under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act, the result being that the petitioners have continued in possession of the said premises uninterrupted since the year 1984-85.;