A.F.R.

Court No. - 35

1. Heard Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Prakhar Tandon, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1/1 to1/3 and perused the record.

2. The present petition challenges the judgment and order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 16, Kanpur Nagar, in Rent Appeal No. 50 of 2013, M/s Damodar Das Gopal Das and others v. Rajendra Kumar Agrawal and others, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed and the order dated 28.02.2013 passed by the Prescribed Authority in Rent Case No. 14 of 2000, Rajendra Kumar Agrawal and another v. Damodar Das Gopal Das and others, was affirmed. Although the petition was instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the matter may be considered in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

3. By the order dated 28.02.2013, the Prescribed Authority allowed the release application instituted by the respondent-landlords under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The petitioners challenged the said order by filing a statutory appeal under Section 22 of the Act, which was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 17.12.2021.

4. During the pendency of the present petition, this Court, by an interim order dated 25.04.2022, stayed the operation and implementation of the orders under challenge.

5. The petitioners have now filed Civil Misc. Withdrawal Application No. 3 of 2026, supported by an affidavit, seeking permission to withdraw the present petition. The application refers to a family settlement/Memorandum of Understanding stated to have been arrived at amongst the members of the family of late Jai Narayan Agrawal, pursuant to which, according to the petitioners, the properties were divided amongst the respective branches of the family.

6. It is further stated in the withdrawal application that, during the pendency of the present petition, the petitioners’ firm, through petitioner nos. 1/1 and 1/2, surrendered possession of the tenanted premises to Sri Narendra Kumar Agrawal on 07.04.2026, allegedly with the consent of Sri Sanjeev Agrawal and Sri Manish Agrawal. On this basis, the petitioners contend that no cause survives for continuation of the present proceedings and that they no longer wish to pursue the challenge to the orders under consideration.

7. The withdrawal application has been opposed by the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for them submits that the petitioners have not paid rent since 01.09.2023. It is further submitted that the release order passed by the Prescribed Authority was affirmed in statutory appeal and that rights in respect of release and possession have consequently accrued in favour of the respondents.

8. The respondents dispute the alleged surrender of possession to Sri Narendra Kumar Agrawal. According to them, he is neither a co-owner nor a co-landlord and was not a party to the original release proceedings.

The possession memo dated 07.04.2026 is also disputed. The respondents contend that the petitioners continue to remain in possession and have raised the plea of surrender to avoid the consequences of the orders passed against them and their liability in respect of rent and possession.

9. On these grounds, the respondents oppose the withdrawal application or, in the alternative, seek a direction requiring the petitioners to clear the alleged arrears of rent and to continue paying rent until possession is delivered to the persons legally entitled to receive it.

10. The objections raised by the respondents bring into focus the question whether a party which has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to challenge an adjudication may discontinue that challenge when it no longer wishes to pursue it, and whether such withdrawal may be refused or made conditional on the g