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/ Civil Judge(Junior Division) Brabanki in order to decide the controversy in question has framed three issues were framed namely :

(1) Kya Prarthi vividit makan ka malik hai tatha unke evam vipakshi ke madhya kiraeydari ka sambandh hai?

(2) Kya prarthijan ki avashakta sadbhawana poorvak ha?

(3) Kya prarthijan ki tulnatmak kathinai vipakshi se adhik hai?

By order dated 22.2.2010 (Annexure No. 2) prescribed authority allowed release application holding therein that the need of applicant is more genuine in comparison to the tenant. Further, finding has also been recorded by the prescribed authority that since the date of moving of release application, no effort has been made by the tenant to search the alternative accommodation and he has not adduced any evidence in this regard.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.2.2010 passed by prescribed authority, petitioner/ tenant filed a Rent Appeal No. 1 of 2010 (Onkar Nath v. B.N. Verma) under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

On 27.3.2010 appellate authority passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo but vide order dated 7.4.2010 appellate authority dismissed appeal without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/ tenant.

5. Aggrieved by order dated 7.4.2010 the petitioner / tenant filed Writ Petition No. 107 of 2010 (Onkar Nath Srivastava v. District Judge, Barbanki and others), disposed the writ petition by order dated 19.8.2010 with the following directions :

“Coupled with the said fact that in the present case, the appellate authority/Incharge District Judge after considering the facts of the case on merit admitted the appeal filed by the petitioner/tenant and granted a stay order to the effect that the parties are directed to maintain status-quo as exists today with certain conditions, then in these circumstances, the District Judge while considering the matter in question on 7.4.2010 exercised the coordinate power and now even if it is found on the basis of record that the petitioner has taken two adjournment which is against the spirit of the initial order dated 27.3.2010 by which the status-quo was granted in respect to the property in question and appeal was admitted, then in that circumstances the petitioner/tenant should be heard and only thereafter the impugned order shall be passed, but the said thing has not been done in the present case, as such the impugned order in question is violation of principles of natural justice.

Further, in the present case, an application for release under Section 21(1-A) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge(Senior Division), Barabanki, has been moved by the owner-landlord/respondent No. 3 in the year, 2001. So, keeping in view the said fact, in order to balance the equity between the parties, I