Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri C.K.Parekh, learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners and Sri Madho Jain, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents/landlord.

Facts :

2. Briefly stated, facts of the present case, are that the plaintiffs-respondents had filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. being P.A. Case No. 90 of 2010 (Ashok Kumar Jain v. Rajendra Kumar Jain and others) in which seven issues were framed by the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Cause Court, Agra, decided the issue Nos. 1,2,4,5 and 6 in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents/landlords. The last issue i.e. issue No. 7 “whether non-compliance of the provisions of Order VI Rule 15(4) C.P.C. would render the release application to be not maintainable”, was decided against the plaintiffs and consequently the aforesaid P.A. Case was dismissed.

3. Aggrieved with the judgment of the Prescribed Authority dated 3.6.2013 in the aforesaid P.A. Case No. 90 of 2010, the plaintiffs-respondents/landlords filed a Rent Appeal No. 83 of 2013 (Ashok Kumar Jain v. Rajendra Kumar Malhotra and another), which has been allowed by the impugned ju