- (1.) IN spite of sufficient service, no one has appeared on behalf of substituted legal representatives of landlord respondert No. 2.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) THIS is tenant's writ petition. Original landlord respondent No. 2 J. N. Budhwar filed Rent Case No. 129 of 1988 against tenant petitioner under section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and 1. viction) Act, 1972 for release of the tenanted accommodation on the ground of bona fide need. Property in dispute is a shop, rent of which is only Rs. 22/- per month. The release application was dismissed by Prescribed Authority/. 5 dditional C. M. M. , kanpur. Date of judgment is not mentioned in the Annexure- 35, which is copy of the judgment. However, from the judgment of the Appellant Court, it is clear that the said judgment was passed on 24. 2. 1992. Against the said judgment and order, landlord respondent No. 2 filed Rent Appeal No. 84 of 1992. IInd A. D. J. , kanpur, through judgment and order dated 14. 9. 1993, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by prescribed authority and allowed the release application of the landlord. The said judgment of the Lower Appellate court has been challenged through this writ petition.;