- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 6-8-1999 passed by XI Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar whereby the applica tion filed for amendment of the release application has been rejected. The petitioner filed an application for release of the disputed premises under Section 21 (l) (b), of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 with the allegations that the disputed ac commodation requires demolition and construction. The respondent No. 2 con tested the application. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application vide order dated 31-5-1997 for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The respondent No. 2 filed an appeal against the said judgment.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the appeal the landlord-petitioner filed an applica tion for amendment of the release applica tion alleging that the disputed accom modation is also required for their per sonal need. This application has been rejected by respondent No. 1 vide im pugned order dated 6-8-1999 on the ground that it will change the nature of case. The petitioners were entitled to file application for release of the disputed ac commodation on both the grounds men tioned under Section 21 (l) (a), and Sec tion 21 (l) (b), of the Act. If after filing of the application they take the plea that the disputed accommodation is required for purpose of their need, it can be considered as an application under Section 21 (l) (a), of the Act also. There is no legal bar to take such a case. This will be an additional ground for seeking release. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 6-8-1999 is hereby quashed.
(3.) THE petitioners have taken the plea in appeal, the case is remanded to the Prescribed Authority where respondent No. 2 can file additional written statement and parties can lead evidence on the new plea taken by the petitioners. It is made clear that on remand of the case the Prescribed Authority shall decide only on the question of bona fide need of the petitioners. It will be open to the respondent No. 2 to challenge the find ing in appeal against the decision of the Prescribed Authority on the finding recorded by him on the question of nature of building and as to whether the petitioners have complied with Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act in addition to any other ground arising out of the decision of the Prescribed Authority. Petition allowed .;