- (1.) SHITLA Prasad Srivastava, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 26th August, 1997 and 10th July, 1997, passed by the respondent, which has been filed as Annexures-12 and 11 to the writ petition respectively.
(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that earlier to the present dispute an application under Sec tion 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, herein after referred to as the Act was filed by the landlord, Bal Swarup Srivastava for releasing the house in dis pute in his favour. The application was contested by the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority by its judgment dated 13th November, 1974 rejected the application. The landlord filed an appeal which was dis missed on 9th May, 1997. Thereafter the Writ Petition No. 1250 of 1997 was filed by the landlord. In that writ petition an ap plication was filed alongwith the sup plementary affidavit for amending the grounds of the writ petition to the effect that by sale-deed dated 15th April, 1978, the petitioner has acquired the residential house in Jhansi, as such in view of the explanation (1) of Section 21 (1) of the Act, need for the tenant/defendant cannot be looked into, that application for amendment was contested by the tenant, that the tenant is using the accommoda tion in question for running a BIDI factory as such it is a business establishment and explanation 1 of Section 21 (1) of the Act will not apply. That writ petition was dis missed on 31-10-79. Judgment is reported in 1983 Volume 2, Allahabad Rent Cases 543, Landlord filed second release ap plication giving rise to this case under Sec tion 21 (1) (a), numbered as P. A. Case No. 43 of 1981. The contention of the landlord in this application was that in private parti tion the accommodation in question has come in the share of the landlord/respon dent No. 1 and as the petitioner/tenant has purchased house No. 108 in Mohalla Purani Pasarat in the name of his wife, therefore, he does not require the present house and the need of the landlord is genuine.
(3.) THE petitioner contested the ap plication challenging the compromise decree passed in Suit No. 80 of 1980 and further that the application is not main tainable, as there is no change in the cir cumstances mentioned in the first applica tion and this second application. The Prescribed Authority rejected the release application by order dated 12th October, 1984. An appeal was filed by the landlord which was allowed and the case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority, vide ordfcr dated 21st October, 1986. Second Writ Petition No. 110 of 1987 was filed against the remand order by the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was sent back to the appel late court to decide the appeal within three months frbm the date of the production of the certified copy of the order. The parties were given liberty to file the additional evidence. This order was passed by this court on 30th April, 1997.;