RAM KUMARI Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenants' writ petition arising out of proceedings under Section 21 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. The landlord was opposite party No. 2 who filed a consolidated application under Section 21 against two sets of tenants. One being the Petitioners and the other being opposite parties 3 and 4, in respect of different premises. The application under Section 21 was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority as barred by res judicata on the ground that a similar application had been dismissed earlier, and that dismissal had been upheld on appeal on 20 -9 -1975, vide judgment, annexure 1. The appellate court, however, took the view that in accordance with the relevant rules a fresh application under Section 21 can always be filed after the expiry of six months from the dismissal of the earlier application. As such the questions of the need and comparative hardship can be agitated afresh. Aggrieved by this decision of the appellate court, the Petitioners have come to this Court under Article 226 of the constitution.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) THE Appellant court has, however, not said anything on this question.