(1.) It is a tenant's writ petition filed against the order dated 19.11.2008 by which the application for release of the accommodation filed by the landlord has been allowed.
(2.) This is the second inning by the respondent. An application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was filed by the respondent-landlord before the Prescribed Authority that he wants to settle his two sons after establishing the Off-set Printing Business Press for the purpose of livelihood. The Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority has rejected the claim of the land-lord respondent and have found that need of the tenant is more genuine and bonafide. The respondent landlord aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, filed a writ petition before this Court as writ petition No. 14197of 2000 which was finally allowed by this Court on 19.11.2008 and the orders passed by the Appellate Court was set-aside and the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority to decide the case on merits and in view of the observations made in the judgment.
(3.) Now the order impugned has been passed by the Appellate Authority allowing the appeal and releasing the accommodation in favour of respondent-landlord. The petitioner who is the tenant has filed the present writ petition on various grounds. Sri Atul Dayal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by the respondent there was a mistake which is apparent that as the order of the Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority was quashed and matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority. The effect was that as the order of Prescribed Authority was quashed the matter should have been decided by the Prescribed Authority not by the Appellate Authority. This objection was taken before the Appellate Authority but the Appellate Authority has not considered the same and has held that in view of judgment and order passed by the High Court , the Appellate Authority has been conferred the power to decide the appeal.