Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri R.P. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.C. Jain, learned counsel for the the respondents.

Controversy in the present case relates to House No. Q 690 Mohalla Kanoon Goyan, district Barabanki under the tenancy of petitioner in regard to which Sri B.N. Verma/opposite party No. 3/landlord moved a release application under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred to as an ‘Act’) on the ground that he has to retire from service on 31.7.2001 after attaining the age of superannuation and after retirement he has to vacate the building which has been provided to him in official capacity. Thereafter he want to live in the premises in question as he has no other premises in his possession.

2. In para-10 of the release application it has been stated that the family of the applicant consist of his wife two daughters and one son and other are co-owners/ landlords of the premises in question had no objection if the same be released in his favour.

3. Accordingly, a P.A. Case No. 3 of 2001 (B.N. Verma v. Onkar Nath Srivastava) registered before prescribed authority/ Civi