JUDGMENT Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora,J. Heard Sri M.A.Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam, Advocate and Sri Manish Kumar, Advocate appearing for the contesting respondent. 2. With the consent of the parties Counsel, the writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. 3. In the instant writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 4.8.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Lucknow, the Rent Appeal No. 28/2013 Inre: Nirmal Chandra Mukherjee v. Ritu Bansal, whereby the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.3.2014 passed in P.A.Case No. 37/2010 has been rejected. 4. In writ petition no. 83 (RC) of 2015, it has been argued by Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the impugned judgment of the appellate court suffers from legal infirmities and the findings recorded by the Appellate Court are contrary to record. Elaborating his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate court while deciding the appeal preferred by the present petitioner has taken into consideration the facts of the appeal filed by the Sardar Manjeet Singh, as would be evident from the perusal of paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment wherein it has been observed that in response to survey report filed by the contesting respondent, no survey report report has been filed by the petitioner/appellate, which is wholly erroneous as the Prescribed Authority in its judgment dated 10.1.2014 has made discussions and observation with respect to the survey report filed by the present petitioner. 5. The aforesaid factual position and mentioning of incorrect facts in the appellate judgment has not been disputed by Sri Manish Kumar, Advocate appearing for the respondent. 6. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to point out that it has been informed at the Bar that Rent Appeal No. 28/13 and Rent Appeal No. 14/2014 have been decided while the third appeal is still pending in the appellate court. 7. It may be clarified that the dispute in the instant writ petition as well as in Writ Petition No. 83(RC) of 2014 is with regard to House No. 289/77, plot no.399, Moti Nagar, PS Naka Hindola, Lucknow. 8. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the impugned judgment and order dated 4.8.2015 passed by the Addl. District Judge cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside on the ground alone. 8. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the impugned judgment and order dated 4.8.2015 passed by the Addl. District Judge cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside on the ground alone. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 4.8.2015 passed by the Addl. District Judge is hereby quashed. The appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to parties Counsel, within a period of two months, from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Parties Counsel undertake that they will not seek any unnecessary adjournment. 9. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of finally.