JUDGMENT :

This writ petition has been filed by Prem Singh, now deceased and represented by his heirs and LRs, assailing two orders of release, passed under Section 21(1)(a) of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (for short, ''the Act'), relating to two distinct tenements in House No. C/105/119, Tehsil Sadar, District Gorakhpur. The orders of release passed separately by the Prescribed Authority relating to both the tenements in House No. 105/119 (supra), for short, 'the house in question', have been affirmed in two separate appeals by the Appellate Authority, under Section 22 of the Act, both the appeals being preferred by Prem Singh.

2. The facts leading to this writ petition are these: Smt. Uma Shukla, mentioned in the cause title of the writ petition as Smt. Uma Devi Shukla, wife of Basant Shukla, instituted two separate proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act against two different tenants, occupying different parts of the house in question. P.A. Case No. 37 of 2013 was instituted by Smt. Uma Shukla (for short, 'the landlady') against Smt. Prabhawati Devi widow of the late Seeta, Shrawan and Gopal, both sons of the late Seeta, seeking release of the part of the house in question in their tenancy, on the ground of her bona fide need.

3. The tenement, that Smt. Prabhawati and her sons held, is described at the foot of the application giving rise to P.A. Case No. 37 of 2013. The boundaries given at the foot of the application show the tenement in the occupation of Smt. Prabhawati and her sons as that portion of the house in question, which was located to the east of the part of the said house that Prem Singh occupies, and has well defined boundaries, discernible from the application under reference.

4. Similarly, the other application for release that was instituted against Prem Singh, also on the ground of bona fide need, by the landlady, describes the tenement in his occupation with reference to its boundaries detailed at the foot of the application, registered on the file of the Prescribed Authority as P.A. Case No. 38 of 2013. The tenement in the occupation of Prem Singh is also shown as part of the house in question with its own distinct and different boundaries, as already mentioned.

5. The landlady, thus, came up with a case against the two tenants, to wit, Smt. Prabhawati Devi and her sons being one and Prem Singh the other, showing them to be the occupants of two distinct tenements, both part of the house in question, but with their distinct and well defined identities. Looking to the course of action that proceedings arising out of the two applications for release took, it would be apposite to dispose of one part of the objection that Prem Singh has raised against the release order first, before considering the others that involve conventional issues arising in proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, between the landlord and tenant. This course of action is necessitated by the rather ingenuous stand taken by Prem Singh after the Prescribed Authority had passed the order of release relating to the demised premises, subject matter of P.A. Case No. 37 of 2013, founded on compromise between the landlady and the tenants in that case, that is to say, Smt. Prabhawati and her sons.

6. Since both the release orders were passed by the Prescribed Authority together in terms of a common judgment and order, Prem Singh, the tenant in P.A. Case No. 38 of 2013 carried an appeal against the release order passed in P.A. Case No. 37 of 2013, also. A look at the proceedings in P.A. Case No. 37 of 2013 brought by the landlady against Smt. Prabhawati Devi and her sons would show that the parties in that case filed a memorandum of compromise, bearing Paper No. 26-Ga, in terms of which the tenant in the said case agreed to deliver possession of the demised premises, subject matter of proceedings to the landlady. The said compromise was verified by the Court