Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20783 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 684 of 2020 Petitioner :- Alok Kant Shukla Thru Power Of Attorney Nalinikant Shukla Respondent :- Appellate Authority Additional District Judge Court No.9andors Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Satyam Singh,Shobh Nath Pandey Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Shri Shobh Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents states that he has not received any instruction from his client. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.02.2019 whereby the release application filed under Section 21(1)(A) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 was rejected, as well as order dated 21.09.2019 whereby the appeal filed dismissed. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that during the pendency of the appeal, evidence was led by the petitioner through his power of attorney holder to establish his bonafide need for release of the premises in question, however, the appellate authority refused to consider the evidence on the ground that the landlord/plaintiff had not stepped into the witness box and had not deposed on oath. It is also recorded that even the release application was not filed by the petitioner and was filed by the power of attorney holder. 5. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate Court has erred in rejecting the appeal on the ground that the power of attorney holder cannot adduce evidence to establish the bonafide need. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Ramkubai since deceased by L.Rs. and Ors. vs. Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak and Ors.; AIR 1999 SC 3089. 6. Considering the submission, prima-facie, the petitioner is correct in arguing that the appellate Court ought to have considered the evidences of the power of attorney holder. There is no quarrel with the proposition that even the power of attorney can depose on behalf of the plaintiff for establishing the bonafide need. However, what transpires is that during the pendency of the present petition, U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 has been repealed by means of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021. 7. In terms of the said repealment, an application can be filed for release of the premises without establishing the bonafide need, as such, no useful purpose would be served in remanding the matter for trial afresh. 8. In view thereof, present petition is disposed off holding that the petitioner would be entitled to file a fresh application under the 2021 Act which shall be pursued in accordance with law and shall be decided with all expedition considering the fact that the petitioner is aged about 76 years and the tenant has not paid any rent since 2017, as has been argued by the petitioner. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench