Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for defendant No. 1-petitioner/tenant and Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents/landlords.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for the following relief:

“to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgement and order dated 31.5.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal Misc. Case No. 417/74/2017 (Annexure-8 to the instant writ petition) and the judgement and order dated 4.3.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 20 of 2001 (Annexure-6 to the instant writ petition.”

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that plaintiffs-respondents/landlords had purchased the House No. 8/11, Arya Nagar, Kanpur Nagar by a sale-deed dated 31.3.1992, which was registered on 20.4.1992 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kanpur. Thus, the plaintiffs-respondents became owner and landlord of the aforesaid disputed house. On the ground of bona fide need, the plaintiffs-respondents filed a Rent Case No. 69 of 1993 (Dr. Santosh Kumar and another v. Smt. Manorma Dubey and another), which was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority/First Additional Judge Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar by judgment and order dated 29.1.2001. Aggrieved with the said judgment, the plaintiffs-respondents filed a Rent Appeal No. 20 of 2001, which was allowed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Kanpur Nagar by the impugned judgment dated 4.3.2010, and consequently, the release application was also allowed.

4. In paras-4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the impugned judgment dated 4.3.2010, the Appellate Court noted the facts. The defendant No. 1-petitioner remained absent on 5.3.2009 and, therefore, the order for ex parte hearing was passed. Tenant-defendant No. 1 did not appear for arguments. The other tenant-defendant No. 2 entered into a compromise being paper No. 12-C, which was filed on 22.8.2003. Considering the facts of the case and evidences on record, the Appeal of the plaintiffs-respondents was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 4.3.2010.

5. Thereafter, the defendant No. 1-petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 66992 of 2010 (Smt. Manorma Dubey v. 14th A.D.J. Kanpur Nagar), which was dismissed by order dated 16.11.2010 with liberty to the petitioner to seek her remedy as may be available in accordance with law.

6. Thereafter, the defendant No. 1-petitioner filed an Application 4-ga supported with affidavit 5-ga under Rule 32(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) for setting aside the impugned Appellate Order. The said Application was registered as R.A. Misc. Case No. 417/74 of 2017, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 31.5.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge-XIV, Kanpur Nagar.

7. Aggrieved with the Appellate Order dated 4.3.2010 and the order dated 31.5.2017 rejecting the restoration application, the present writ petition has been filed by the defendant No. 1-petitioner.

Submission on behalf of the Plaintiffs-Respondents :

8. Learned counsel for the defendant No. 1-petitioner submits as under :

(i) The Application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act filed by the plaintiffs-respondents was not entertainable inasmuch as the said Application was filed without exhausting the period of three years from the date of purchase of the disputed house and without giving six months’ notice.

(ii) The plaintiffs-respondents/landlords have no bona fide need of the disputed house. The findings recorded in this regard by the prescribed Authority were not reversed by the Appellate Court rather the Appellate Court substituted its own finding which is not permissible. The reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment in the case of Ramesh Cha