Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THE landlord -petitioners seek writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 17.7.1987 whereby he rejected the application for the execution of the order passed on an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The facts, in brief, are that the landlord -petitioners filed an application for release of the disputed accommodation. The Prescribed Authority rejected the release application on 15.5.1978. The landlords preferred a Rent Appeal No. 68 of 1978 which was allowed and the disputed premises was released in their favour with the condition that the tenant -opposite party could be liable to eviction only after Premises No. 109/236 -A is allotted to him with the actual help of the landlord -applicants. Against this order both the parties preferred writ petitions. The writ petitions were dismissed with certain directions. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: - - The other petition has been filed by the landlord and his only grievance is that as the appellate authority did not fix any time limit the tenant has not taken any steps for getting the house allotted despite notice sent by him. As a matter of fact this grievance of landlord is not correct, it is admitted that till now he did not intimate the Prescribed Authority that the house was likely to fall vacant in pursuance of the order passed by the appellate authority. He may, therefore, intimate the Prescribed Authority within a month that the house in which he is tenant is likely to fall vacant. A copy of this intimation may be given to the tenant who may approach the Prescribed Authority within 15 days from the service of the copy of the application for allotment of the premises in dispute and the Prescribed Authority shall take necessary action in accordance with law and in the light of observations made by the appellate authority in his order dated 17th July, 1980. In case tenant does not move an application for allotment even after service of copy of intimation of vacancy it shall be open to landlord to approach the appellate authority for necessary action in pursuance of order dated 17th July, 1980. In the result both the petitions fail and are dismissed subject to observations made above. Parties shall bear their own costs.
(2.) THE landlord intimated the vacancy. The premises No. 109/236 -A did not belong to the petitioners. The landlord of such premises filed an application for release and it was released in their favour. The premises No. 109/236 -A was not allotted in favour of the tenant -respondent. The petitioners filed an application for execution of the release order under Section 23 of the Act but it has been rejected by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 17.7.1987 on the ground that the premises No. 109/236 -A has not been allotted to the respondent.
(3.) I have heard Sri K.L. Grover, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri S.P. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent.;