Case: Girdhar Das and Ors.  Vs.  The District Judge, Varanasi and Ors.

Respondents Nos. 3 & 4 made an application to the Prescribed Authority for release of certain premises which were in the occupation of the appellants as tenants. The ground on which the application for release was made was that respondents 3 & 4 bona fide required the premises for the purpose of their own use and occupation under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The Prescribed Authority took the view that the bona fide requirement of respondents 3 and 4 was established and that greater hardship would be caused to respondents 3 & 4 if an order of eviction was refused than what would be caused to the appellants if an order of eviction was passed. On this view, the Prescribed Authority passed an order of eviction against the appellants. The appellants preferred an appeal to the District Judge, Varanasi. The learned District Judge found in favour of respondents 3 & 4 on the question of bona fide reqrirement of the premises but so far as the question of greater hardship was concerned, the learned District Judge held that greater hardship would be caused to the appellants by passing an order of eviction than that which would be caused to respondents 3 and 4 by refusing to pass it. The learned District Judge accordingly allowed the appeal and rejected the application of respondents 3 and 4 for release of the premises. Respondents 3 and 4 thereupon preferred a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad. The question of greater hardship was considered by the Prescribed Authority and the learned District Judge in view of Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the Act and respondents 3 & 4, therefore, challenged the validity of that rule in the Writ Petition. Since the question of validity of Rule 16 was a question of some importance, the learned single Judge of the High Court, before whom the Writ petition came up for hearing, referred this question to a Full Bench. The Full Bench in a decision reported in Chandra Kumar Shah v. District Judge, 1976 All WC 50 = (AIR 1976 All 328  ) held that Rule 16 was ultra vires the Act and with this opinion of the Full Bench, the case once again came back to a single Judge of the High Court. The learned Single Judge in view of this opinion of the Full Bench held that the District Judge was in error in considering the question of comparative hardship and remanded the case to the District Judge for disposing of the appeal before him in the light of the opinion rendered by the Full Bench. The appellants being dissatisfied by this order of remand preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court.

Reasoning:
3. We are told that pursuant to the order of remand made by the Single Judge of the High Court, the District Judge has disposed of the appeal before him by holding that the bonafide requirement of respondents 3 and 4 was established and they were, therefore, entitled to obtain a release order against the appellants. The appellants being aggrieved by this release order passed by the District Judge have preferred a writ application in the High Court and this writ application is pending. Since we are setting aside the order of the learned single Judge remanding the case to the District Judge, the subsequent proceedings before the District Judge as also the writ application filed by the appellants before the High Court against the subsequent order of the District Judge will also fall and the subsequent order dated 12th March 1976 made by the District Judge will stand vacated