Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This is landlord’s writ petition who is aggrieved by judgment and order dated 30.10.2000 passed by District Judge, Jhansi in Rent Control Appeal No. 10 of 1997. The Appellate Court while allowing appeal has set aside judgment and order dated 10.2.1999 of Prescribed Authority and has remanded matter to consider landlord’s release application afresh in the light of observations made in appellate judgment.

2. The dispute relates to shop No. 27 situated at Subhashganj, Jhansi. The shop is on the ground floor of building and owned by petitioner. The respondent No. 3, Lalit Kumar Jain, is tenant of aforesaid shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-.

3. The petitioner filed an application under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1972”) registered as Case No. 13 of 1997 before Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jhansi stating that respondent-tenant is not doing any business while on the other hand petitioner-landlord is unemployed and wants aforesaid shop to be released so that he may start his own business therein.

4. The respondent No. 3 contested application alleging that petitioner-landlord is running a huge business of transport and has also other business i.e. STD shop etc. He is also running a confectionery factory. He used to make biscuits etc and therefore, his contention that he is unemployed is false and incorrect. There is no genuine need of shop for alleged self-employment of landlord and therefore, application deserves to be rejected.

5. The Prescribed Authority allowed application vide judgment and order dated 10.2.1999 and released shop in question in favour of landlord directing respondent No. 3-tenant to vacate the same. It also held that tenant shall be entitled for payment of rent of three years i.e. Rs. 2400/-.

6. The respondent filed Rent Control Appeal No. 10 of 1999. During pendency of appeal, he filed application requesting Appellate Court to admit certain additional evidence which was rejected by District Judge, Jhansi by order dated 29.1.2000 whereupon he came to this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9805 of 2005 which was allowed and Appellate Court was directed to admit documents filed by respondent No. 3 as additional evidence. The relevant extract of the judgment dated 28.8.2000 is as under:

“The petitioner filed an affidavit stating that the notice was not given as provided under the first proviso of Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. He filed an affidavit in support of his contention. This plea was not taken before the Prescribed Authority. The Appellate Authority rightly on examining all aspects did not accept the same as additional evidence.

The petitioner also filed certain other documents to prove the case of the landlord-respondent namely photographs and assessment list of shop running in the name of Kishan Lal. The Court has rejected these documents. The question as to whether these documents are relevant is still to be considered when the appeal is decided on merits. The landlord-respondent may file evidence of affidavit in rebuttal.

In view of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 29.1.2000 is quashed only in respect of certain documents to be admitted in evidence as observed above.”

7. Thereafter, again respondent No. 3 appears to have moved an application requesting Appellate Court to entertain certain documents and to lead evidence which was also rejected by District Judge, Jhansi by order dated 28.4.2000. The respondent No. 3 again came to this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20530 of 2000. This writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 2.5.2000 with the following directions :

“Shri Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the affidavit has already been filed alongwith an application moved on 3.12.1999 and therefore, there was no occasion to give fresh affidavit. On the other hand,