AMNA Vs. VIIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. All substitu tion applications in both the writ petitions are allowed.

(2.) BOTH the writ petitions have been filed by the tenants against the landlords in respect of the same property.

(3.) SIMULTANEOUSLY new purchaser landlord Jameel Ahmad also initiated eviction/release proceedings against three sons of Abdul Razzak i. e. , Mohd. Nasir, Abdul Wahab and Abdul Salam, and Smt. Bismillah wife of Late Abdul Razzak on the ground of bonafide need under section 21 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of case No. 58 of 1989. Release application was filed under both the Clauses (a) and (b) of section 21 (I) of the Act i. e. , on the ground of bonafide need as well as dilapidated condition of the building. Prescribed Authority, Kanpur through judgment and order dated 11. 5. 1993 allowed the release appli cation only on the ground of dilapidated condition i. e. , under section 21 (1) (b) of the Act but dismissed the release application on the ground of bonafide need i. e. under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. Against the said judgment and order both the parties i. e. landlord and opposite parties-tenants in the release applica tion filed appeals being Rent Appeal No. 90 of 1993 and Rent Appeal No. 95 of 1993. In the appeals, petitioners who are also descendants of Abdul Sattar the original tenant, filed impleadment applications. Applications were rejected on 10. i. 1995. Applications for recalling the said order were filed on 6. 2. 1995 which were rejected on 6. 2,1995 itself. On 10. 1. 1995 impleadment application were rejected ex-parte. However, the said order is quite detailed order which was passed after hearing learned Counsel for the landlord and after perusing the allegations made in the impleadment applications. The orders dated 10. 1. 1995 and 6. 2. 1995 have been challenged through the second writ petition.