Abdul Hamid Vs. VII Additional Dist. and Sessions Judge, Kanpur and Others
BHAGWATI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of an application for release of premises made by respondents Nos. 4 to 6 under Section 21 (1) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 13 of 1972. The application was made against one Ahmad Hasan who was admittedly the tenant in respect of the premises. Ahmed Hasan died on 20th February, 1974 and one Mohammad Ayub was substituted as the legal representative of Ahmed Hasan by an order made by the Prescribed Authority on 19th March. 1974. Within six days thereafter a compromise was arrived at between Mohammad Ayud and respondents Nos. 4 to 6 for release of the premises in favour of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 and the compromise was verified by the Prescribed Authority. But before an order could be passed by the Prescribed Authority in terms of the compromise. objections were filed by the appellant against the compromise on 25th March 1974 on the ground that the appellant and not Mohammad Ayub was the legal representative of Ahmed Hasan and also claiming that proceedings for perjury be taken against Mohammad Ayub. While these objections were pending, an application dated 30th September. 1974 was purported to be made on behalf of the appellant praying that the objections filed by him on 25th March, 1974 be withdrawn. The case of the appellant was that Shri A. S. Bajpai who filed this application on his behalf, had no. authority to do so and the Prescribed Authority was, therefore, not entitled to act on this application. The Prescribed Authority however, proceeded to act on this application and passed release order in favour of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 in terms of the compromise, on the basis that the objections filed by the appellant on 25th March, 1974 were withdrawn by his subsequent application dated 30th September, 1974. The appellant preferred an appeal against the order of release before the District Judge but the appeal was dismissed. The order passed by the District Judge was then challenged by the appellant by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court but the Writ Petition was also unsuccessful and hence the appellant preferred the present appeal before us by special leave obtained from this Court. 2. It is not necessary to go into the various questions which arise in this appeal and which raise highly controversial issue of fact, because it has been agreed between the parties-and we must state that the attitude taken by respondents Nos. 4 to 6 is very fair and just - that the order of release passed by the Prescribed Authority should be set aside and the matter should go back to the Prescribed Authority for the purpose of determining, on the objections of the appellant dated 25th March, 1974 as to who is the heir of Ahmed Hasan, Mohammed Ayub or the appellant and if Mohammed Ayub is found to be the heir of Ahmed Hasan, the Prescribed Authority should be at liberty to pass an order of release in favour of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 on the basis of the compromise arrived at between them and Mohammed Ayub, but if it is found that the appellant and not Mohammed Ayub is the heir of Ahmed Hasan, then the appellant should be impleaded as legal representative of Ahmed Hasan and, if necessary, the abatement should be set aside and the Prescribed Authority should then proceed immediately to dispose of the release application.
1[ds]2. It is not necessary to go into the various questions which arise in this appeal and which raise highly controversial issue of fact, because it has been agreed between thed we must state that the attitude taken by respondents Nos. 4 to 6 is very fair and justthat the order of release passed by the Prescribed Authority should be set aside and the matter should go back to the Prescribed Authority for the purpose of determining, on the objections of the appellant dated 25th March, 1974 as to who is the heir of Ahmed Hasan, Mohammed Ayub or the appellant and if Mohammed Ayub is found to be the heir of Ahmed Hasan, the Prescribed Authority should be at liberty to pass an order of release in favour of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 on the basis of the compromise arrived at between them and Mohammed Ayub, but if it is found that the appellant and not Mohammed Ayub is the heir of Ahmed Hasan, then the appellant should be impleaded as legal representative of Ahmed Hasan and, if necessary, the abatement should be set aside and the Prescribed Authority should then proceed immediately to dispose of the release application.
### Instruction:
Make a prediction on the court's ruling (acceptance (1) or rejection (0) of the petition), and then dissect the proceeding to provide a detailed explanation using key textual passages.

### Input:
BHAGWATI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of an application for release of premises made by respondents Nos. 4 to 6 under Section 21 (1) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 13 of 1972. The application was made against one Ahmad Hasan who was admittedly the tenant in respect of the premises. Ahmed Hasan died on 20th February, 1974 and one Mohammad Ayub was substituted as the legal representative of Ahmed Hasan by an order made by the Prescribed Authority on 19th March. 1974. Within six days thereafter a compromise was arrived at between Mohammad Ayud and respondents Nos. 4 to 6 for release of the premises in favour of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 and the compromise was verified by the Prescribed Authority. But before an order could be passed by the Prescribed Authority in terms of the compromise. objections were filed by the appellant against the compromise on 25th March 1974 on the ground that the appellant and not Mohammad Ayub was the legal representative of Ahmed Hasan and also claiming that proceedings for perjury be taken against Mohammad Ayub. While these objections were pending, an application dated 30th September. 1974 was purported to be made on behalf of the appellant praying that the objections filed by him on 25th March, 1974 be withdrawn. The case of the appellant was that Shri A. S. Bajpai who filed this application on his behalf, had no. authority to do so and the Prescribed Authority was, therefore, not entitled to act on this application. The Prescribed Authority however, proceeded to act on this application and passed release order in favour of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 in terms of the compromise, on the basis that the objections filed by the appellant on 25th March, 1974 were withdrawn by his subsequent application dated 30th September, 1974. The appellant preferred an appeal against the order of release before the District Judge but the appeal was dismissed. The order passed by the District Judge was then challenged by the appellant by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court but the Writ Petition was also unsuccessful and hence the appellant preferred the present appeal before us by special leave obtained from this Court. 2. It is not necessary to go into the various questions which arise in this appeal and which raise highly controversial issue of fact, because it has been agreed between the parties-and we must state that the attitude taken by respondents Nos. 4 to 6 is very fair and just - that the order of release passed by the Prescribed Authority should be set aside and the matter should go back to the Prescribed Authority for the purpose of determining, on the objections of the appellant dated 25th March, 1974 as to who is the heir of Ahmed Hasan, Mohammed Ayub or the appellant and if Mohammed Ayub is found to be the heir of Ahmed Hasan, the Prescribed Authority should be at liberty to pass an order of release in favour of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 on the basis of the compromise arrived at between them and Mohammed Ayub, but if it is found that the appellant and not Mohammed Ayub is the heir of Ahmed Hasan, then the appellant should be impleaded as legal representative of Ahmed Hasan and, if necessary, the abatement should be set aside and the Prescribed Authority should then proceed immediately to dispose of the release application.

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
2. It is not necessary to go into the various questions which arise in this appeal and which raise highly controversial issue of fact, because it has been agreed between thed we must state that the attitude taken by respondents Nos. 4 to 6 is very fair and justthat the order of release passed by the Prescribed Authority should be set aside and the matter should go back to the Prescribed Authority for the purpose of determining, on the objections of the appellant dated 25th March, 1974 as to who is the heir of Ahmed Hasan, Mohammed Ayub or the appellant and if Mohammed Ayub is found to be the heir of Ahmed Hasan, the Prescribed Authority should be at liberty to pass an order of release in favour of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 on the basis of the compromise arrived at between them and Mohammed Ayub, but if it is found that the appellant and not Mohammed Ayub is the heir of Ahmed Hasan, then the appellant should be impleaded as legal representative of Ahmed Hasan and, if necessary, the abatement should be set aside and the Prescribed Authority should then proceed immediately to dispose of the release application.
