JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties.
2. Release application (Rent case No. 1 OS of 1985) under Section 21(l)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the landlord was allowed as far back as on 17.7.1992 by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.
3. Aggrieved by order dated 17.7.1992, the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 filed Rent Appeal No. 170 of 1992 which was also dismissed vide judgement dated 16.8.1993.
4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 tiled Civil Misc. Writ No. 30643 of 1993 which was also dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 9.1 1.1994.
5. After dismissal of the writ petition, an application was moved for grant of time to vacate the accommodation. The High Court vide order dated 17.11.1994 granted 6 months time to the tenant to vacate the disputed accommodation on the condition of undertaking to be given by the tenants within three weeks from the date of order in pursuance of the order dated 17.1 1.1994. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 gave their undertaking for vacating the disputed accommodation within the stipulated period, however, despite furnishing undertaking dated 6.12.1994, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 did not handover vacant physical possession to the landlords, as such, application under Section 23 of the Act was filed which was registered as Rent Misc. Application No. 13/23/1996 - Shiv Shankar Gupta v. Ram Kishore Gupta and Ors.
6. It appears that Rent Misc. Application No. 13/23/1996 was dismissed in default on 3.2.1998, Thereafter, a fresh application was moved which was registered as case No. 20/23/1999 and original rent case No. 108 of 1985 could be attached only on 5.7.2003. An order was passed on 25.8.2003 directing the applicant to give an affidavit in pursuance thereof, accordingly, an affidavit was filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 on 2.9.2003. Thereafter, an application dated 26.9.2003 was moved by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 stating therein that in pursuance of the undertaking given by them, possession had been delivered to one Sri Krishna Narain in the last week of April, 1995, as such, they prayed for dismissal of the application under Section 23 of the Act as not maintainable.
7. It may be noted that Sri Krishna Narain was not party to the dispute in the release application. He was brother of late Sri Shiv Shankar Gupta.
8. It also appears from record that a number of adjournments have been taken and objections have been filed by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 for possession of the disputed accommodation.
9. It is evident from record that respondent Nos. 3 to 5 had given undertaking before the Court to vacate the disputed accommodation within six months; filed affidavit in this regard and took stand that they had handed over peaceful possession to Sri Krishna Narain. It appears that possession was not given to Sri Krishan Narain Gupta, who had filed application along with father of the petitioners but to Sri Rama Shankar, whose application for impleadment had been rejected by the Courts below before deciding the release application.
10. Admittedly, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are not in possession over the disputed accommodation but they appear to have handed over possession to a third person. In these circumstances, the release application, rent appeal as well as the writ petition were allowed in favour of the petitioners. When respondent Nos. 3 to 5 had given undertaking to vacate the disputed accommodation within the stipulated period, it is incumbent on the part of authorities below as well as respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to ensure delivery of possession to the petitioners. In view of admission of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 that they have vacated the tenanted portion, they are no longer interested party in the case. The concerned authority below will ensure that the vacated accommodation, in dispute, is handed over to the petitioners in favour of whom the release application had been allowed, which was affirmed by this Court.
11. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the appellate Court below shall decide Rent Appeal No. 20/23/1999 within a month from today and shall ensure that vacant peaceful possession is delivered to the landlords in whose favour the release application was allowed, affirmed by this Court. If necessary, Police force may also be provided. No orders as to costs.