Bharati Sapru, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 Shri Arvind Srivastava.
(2.) ALTHOUGH vakalatnama has been filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3, no Counsel has appeared for them. They had been granted time by this Court earlier to file a counter-affidavit but they have chosen not to do so. I am proceeding to hear the matter without the benefit of the presence of respondents No. 2 and 3. The facts as stated by the petitioner in this writ pe tition, therefore, are completely unrebutted. The admitted facts are that the petitioner is the landlord of the ac commodation in dispute and has filed P.A. Case No. 2 of 1989 seeking release under the provisions of 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against respon dent No. 1-Parsadi Dhobhi.
(3.) THE disputed premises is a shop bearing No. 27/61 Thela Char Pathwari, Belanganj, Agra. The respondent No. 1 was the tenant of the shop in dispute at Rs. 3/- per month. The respondent No. 1 contested the case. The pre scribed authority by its judgment dated 19.7.2003 allowed the release applica tion of the landlord holding that the need of the petitioner landlord was bona fide and his comparative need was greater. Aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 19.7.2003, the tenant Prasadi Dhobhi filed Rent Control Appeal No. 457 of 2003. At this stage, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also entered into the frame and claimed themselves to be aggrieved parties and filed Appeal No. 501 of 2003. One Suresh Chandra had applied for impleadment and his application for impleadment was rejected by the Prescribed Authority and, thereafter, he filed Writ Petition No. 42870 of 1993 which was also rejected by this Court by judg ment dated 21.4.1999.;