O. P. GARG, J. ( 1 ) THE dispute relates to premises No. 1 15/95, Ashok Nagar, Kanpur in which one late Arjun Lal was a tenant. Rajendra Kumar Nigam, the present petitioner who is landlord of the said premises, filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was registered as P. A. case No. 18 of 1996. The said release petition was allowed by the prescribed authority by order dated 11. 3. 1999. Late Arjun Lal or his legal heirs did not file any appeal under Section 22 of the Act and thus, the order of release dated 11. 3. 1999 became final. ( 2 ) THE landlord moved an application under Section 23 of the Act for implementation/execution of the order of release. In spite of the best efforts of the prescribed authority, the landlord could not be put in physical possession of the released accommodation oh account of the obstruction/resistance put in by one Braj Behari Misra-- (now respondent No. 3 ). It is maintained that Braj Behari Misra--respondent No. 3 was backed by one Sri Bhoodhar Misra, a member of the Legislative Assembly from Kanpur and, therefore, the police help was also not made available to translate the release order into action. ( 3 ) BRAJ Behari Misra--respondent No. 3 moved an application on 15. 5. 2000 before the prescribed authority to recall the order dated 11. 3. 1999. The application was rejected by the Prescribed authority on 16. 5. 2000 with the observation that he was an unauthorised occupant. Thereafter. Braj Behari Misra-respondent No. 3 filed Rent Appeal No. 47 of 2000 under Section 22 of the act asserting himself to be the tenant of the released accommodation. This appeal has been admitted by learned District Judge, Kanpur Nagar on 23. 5. 2000 and the operation of the original order of release dated 11. 3. 1999 has been stayed. Thereafter. Braj Behari Misra-respondent No. 3 filed Rent Appeal No. 47 of 2000 under Section 22 of the act asserting himself to be the tenant of the released accommodation. This appeal has been admitted by learned District Judge, Kanpur Nagar on 23. 5. 2000 and the operation of the original order of release dated 11. 3. 1999 has been stayed. It is In these circumstances that the landlord has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india to quash the order of the District Judge admitting the appeal and staying the order of release on the ground that an appeal at the instance of an unauthorised occupant against whom any order of release has been passed is not maintainable under Section 22 of the Act. ( 4 ) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri N. B. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S. M. Dayal, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3. ( 5 ) THE moot point for consideration and determination in the present writ petition is that : whether Braj Behari Misra-respondent No. 3 who was not a party to the release petition and against whom the order of release is being enforced is entitled to maintain the appeal under section 22 of the Act or not. Sri N. B. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the respondent No. 3 has been adjudged as an unauthorised occupant in proceedings under section 23 of the Act and since the order passed under Section 23 is not subject to appeal under section 22 of the Act. the appeal before learned District Judge is incompetent and, therefore, the interim order of stay passed by him in an appeal, which is not maintainable is vitiated. Sri Dayal has repelled the above submission and urged that an appeal under Section 22 may be filed by a person who is aggrieved-by an order passed under Section 21 of the Act. ( 6 ) SECTION 22 of the Act. which requires Interpretation, runs as follows : "any person aggrieved by an order under Section 21 or Section 24 may, within 30 days from the date of order, prefer an appeal against it to the District Judge, and in other respects, the provisions of Section 10 shall mutatis mutandis apply In relation to such appeal. which requires Interpretation, runs as follows : "any person aggrieved by an order under Section 21 or Section 24 may, within 30 days from the date of order, prefer an appeal against it to the District Judge, and in other respects, the provisions of Section 10 shall mutatis mutandis apply In relation to such appeal. " ( 7 ) BRAJ Behari Misra-respondent No. 3 claims himself to be the tenant of the accommodation, in respect of which an order of release has been passed and it is alleged that his possession dates back prior to the year 1976. It was also pointed out that late Arjun Lal was not in occupation as a tenant of the accommodation which has throughout been In the possession of the respondent No. 3 as a tenant. The order of release passed under Section 21 of the Act is executable against the tenant as well as any other person who was let into possession by the tenant to frustrate the order of release. In the present case, it has to be seen whether Braj Behari Misra-respbndent No. 3 was, in fact, the tenant of the accommodation which has been released treating late Arjun Lal as the tenant. The respondent No. 3 was not a party to the release petition. The application to recall the order of release moved by the respondent No. 3 before the Prescribed Authority failed. Braj behari Misra--respondent No. 3 who claims himself to be the tenant in his own and independent right and not through late Arjun Lal against whom the release petition was filed, is undoutedly an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 22 of the Act. Any person who is aggrieved by an order passed under Section 21 of the Act is legally entitled to maintain an appeal under section 22 of the Act, even though he may not have been a party in the release proceeding. This point came to be considered in different context in Mohd Arif v. IInd Additional District Judge, kanpur Nagar, 1991 (2) ARC 86. In that case, Mohd Arif, the petitioner made an application for impleading him as a party on the ground that he was also a co-tenant in the accommodation in dispute in respect of which an application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was moved. The prescribed authority rejected the application. In that case, Mohd Arif, the petitioner made an application for impleading him as a party on the ground that he was also a co-tenant in the accommodation in dispute in respect of which an application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was moved. The prescribed authority rejected the application. Mohd Arif who claims himself to be the co-tenant, approached this Court by filing a writ petition. Though the writ petition was dismissed, it was observed : ". . . . . In case, an order of release is ultimately passed in respect of the accommodation. In which mohammad Arif claims to be also a co-tenant and in case he feels aggrieved by the final order, he may have a right to file an appeal under Section 22. . . . . A reading of the above provision would make it clear that any person aggrieved by an order under Section 21 (1) (a), has a right of filing an appeal under Seclion 22. Section 22 of the aforesaid Act does not state that any party aggrieved by an order under Seclion 21 of the aforesaid Act, is only entitled to file an appeal. The word any person aggrieved is significant. It means that a person, who is affected or is aggrieved by an order passed under Section 21 of the aforesaid Act shall have a right to file an appeal although he may not be a party to the proceedings. " ( 8 ) THE appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 cannot be said to be incompetent as he is obviously aggrieved by the order passed under Section 21 of the Act. The landlord, instead of contesting the appeal, has unnecessarily rushed to this Court for quashing the proceedings in the appeal. The petition lacks merits and is devoid of substance. ( 9 ) IT is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. On the production of a certified copy of this order, the appellate court shall decide Appeal No. 47 of 2000 filed by Braj behari Misra-respondent No. 3 under Section 22 of the Act positively within 30 days after hearing the concerned parties. ( 9 ) IT is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. On the production of a certified copy of this order, the appellate court shall decide Appeal No. 47 of 2000 filed by Braj behari Misra-respondent No. 3 under Section 22 of the Act positively within 30 days after hearing the concerned parties. Sri Dayal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 states that the respondent No. 3 shall not, in any manner, delay the disposal of the appeal and extend due co-operation in getting the appeal decided within the time specified. ( 10 ) IT is also made clear that the appellate authority shall not be influenced, in any manner, by any observation made by this Court in this judgment and shall decide the appeal according to law taking his own independent view. .