Hon’ble Anjani Kumar, J.—By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners has challenged the orders passed by the prescribed authority as well as by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, which shall here-in-after referred to as ‘the Act’.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that contesting respondent-landlord filed an application on 28th August, 1995 purporting to be an application under Section 21 (1)(a) of ‘the Act’ for the release of accommodation in question in which the shop in dispute is situated on the ground of bona fide requirement. This application under Section 21 (1)(a) of ‘the Act’ filed by the respondent-landlord was contested by the petitioner-tenant denying the need set up by the landlord. The prescribed authority vide order dated 20th January, 1997 allowed the release application filed by the respondent-landlord holding that the need of the landlord is bona fide and in comparison to that of the petitioner-tenant is more pressing.

3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the prescribed authority dated 20th January, 1997, the petitioner filed an appeal on 14th February, 1997 under Section 22 of ‘the Act’ before the appellate authority. During the pendency of appeal before the appellate authority, the petitioner filed an application on 14th May, 1998 with the prayer that accompanying affidavit be accepted as additional evidence on behalf of the petitioner-tenant. The affidavit which is said to brought on record by the tenant was to the effect that during the pendency of the appeal many facts have been changed, which were not existing earlier at the time when the application under Section 21 (1)(a) of ‘the Act’ was filed and the application was decided and were also not in the knowledge of the petitioner-tenant. It is further asserted in the aforesaid affidavit that the landlord’s son Sandeep got married and started living at New Delhi where he is carrying on his business, therefore the need set up by the landlord for his son Sandeep is no more in existence and shall not be taken into consideration in view of the changed circumstances and facts. It has further been brought on record by the petitioner-tenant in the aforesaid affidavit that first floor shop in which M/s. Sun Sales Corporation, which is situated above the shop in dispute, has been closed and the shop has been let out to Savey Dryers and Dry Cleaners in which business of dry cleans has been started with effect from 7th December, 1997 i.e. after the decision of the application by the prescribed authority. The appellate authority vide order dated 5th March, 1999 dismissed the petitioner’s aforesaid application numbered as 14-Ga. Thereafter the petitioner-tenant filed an application on 13th May, 1999, which has been numbered as 20 Ga2 to recall the order dated 5th March, 1999. The appellate authority vide order dated 4th September, 1999 rejected the recall application filed by the petitioner-tenant.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 5th March, 1999 and 4th September, 1999, passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner filed writ petition being civil misc. writ petition No. 54617 of 2000 before this Court. This Court vide judgment and order dated 25th February, 2002 dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner with the observation, which is reproduced below :

”Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is directed against the order of the appellate authority thereby refusing to accept the additional evidence sought to be brought on record of the appeal at the appellate stage by the petitioner-tenant. Without entering into the merits of the order passed by the appellate authority, since the petitioner-tenant will have an opportunity to challenge the order impugned in the present writ petition and also in case this appeal is ultimately decided against him by the appellate authority. In this view of the matter, without entering into the