Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. This case has come up by the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice as fresh today in view of Apex Court's judgment dated 3.11.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10011 of 2014 (arising from SLP (C) No. 27616 of 2014 whereby earlier judgment of this Court dated 29.5.2014 has been set aside and the Hon'ble Court, in the relevant part of its order, has said as under:

"Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present controversy, we are of the view that the order passed by the High Court is a non-speaking order and, as such, deserves to be set aside. The same is accordingly set aside.

The matter is remanded back to the High Court requiring it to consider the matter on merits in accordance with law. We would appreciate if the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court lists the matter before the same Hon'ble Judge who had disposed of the matter by passing the impugned order dated 29.05.2014.

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

The parties are directed to appear before the High Court on 04.12.2014 whereupon the High Court shall dispose of the matter by hearing it on day-to-day basis."

2. Though the case has been called several times, but neither petitioners appeared in person nor any of their counsels has put in appearance. In the circumstances, I called upon the learned counsels who had appeared in this matter and whose vakalat-nama is on record through the Court Master.

3. Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, one of the counsels for petitioners, stated that he has no instructions in the matter and Sri P.K. Ganguly would argue the matter. When called, Sri Ganguly appeared and stated that neither he is aware of Supreme Court's order nor possess file since his client took away the same and has not given any instruction to him to contest and argue the matter after remand. Therefore, he is not able to assist the Court. No other counsel has appeared. The petitioners are also not present though they were directed by Apex Court to appear before this Court today, i.e. on 4.12.2014 and obviously the aforesaid judgment was passed by the Court in presence of the parties, in appeal instituted by present petitioners themselves.

4. Sri A.P. Srivastava, Advocate, is present on behalf of respondents 1/1 to 1/9 and respondent no. 2. He, however, stated that since no argument has been advanced on behalf of petitioners, as none is present on their behalf, therefore, he is relying on the reasons stated in the impugned judgments and that may be looked into by the Court.

5. In these circumstances, particularly when none is present on behalf of petitioners to address this Court on merits, looking into the direction of Apex Court, I find no option but to look into the record on my own and to decide this writ petition by considering grounds taken in the writ petition itself.

6. Brief facts necessary for understanding the dispute and appreciation may be stated as under.

7. The dispute relates to premises no. A-9/44-B situate in Mohalla Kayastha Tola, Varanasi, which is a residential accommodation. Gulam Qadir and his wife Smt. Shahjahan Begam claimed ownership thereof by virtue of registered sale-deed dated 4.5.1979 whereby the aforesaid premises was purchased by them from its earlier owner, Gulam Nabi alias Babu, resident of A9/44, Mohalla Kayastha Tola, Varanasi. The aforesaid premises comprises of a Dalan, Angan, Room and Kitchen on the ground floor and a Room and Tin Shed on the first floor. The defendant no. 1, Abdul Hadi. along with his family, consisted of his wife and daughters, occupied the aforesaid premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-.

8. Sri Ghulam Qadir and Shahjahan Begum (respondent no. 1, now deceased and substituted by legal heirs) and, respondent no. 2 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") before Prescribed Authority, Varanasi for release of accommodation on the ground of personal need whic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document