4 to 6 and the companypromise was verified by the prescribed Authority.
The case of the appellant was that Shri A.S. Bajpai who filed this application on his behalf, had numberauthority to do so and the Prescribed Authority was, therefore, number entitled to act on this application.
The application was made against one Ahmad Hasan who was admittedly the tenant in respect of the premises.
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.
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was purported to be made on behalf of the appellant praying that the objections filed by him on 25th March, 1974 be withdrawn.
4 to 6 in terms of the companypromise, on the basis that the objections filed by the appellant on 25th March, 1974 were withdrawn by his subsequent application dated 30th September, 1974.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 Prescribed Authority however, proceeded to act on this application and passed release order in favour of respondents Nos.
But before an order companyld be passed by the Prescribed Authority in terms of the companypromise, objections were filed by the appellant against the companypromise on 25th March 1974 on the ground that the appellant and number Mohammad Ayub was the legal representative of Ahmed Hasan and also claiming that proceedings for perjury be taken against Mohammad Ayub.
Within six days thereafter a companypromise was arrived at between Mohammad Ayub and respondents Nos.
13 of 1972.
4 to 6 for release of the premises in favour of respondents Nos.
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.
The appellant preferred an appeal against the order of release before the District Judge but the appeal was dismissed.
N. Bhagwati, J. 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.
