BHAGWATI PRASAD GUPTA Vs. PRAKASH BHALOTIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) How unrealistic and utterly unrelated to fact situation. a court proceeding becomes, is disconcertingly demonstrated in this appeal

(2.) A tenant under a decree of eviction is the appellant. Special leave was granted in view of the submission that the building of which the suit premises formed part was constructed in 1970 and was, therefore, not covered by U. P. Act 13 of 1972 and, therefore, the tenant had no protection of the said Act. When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 31st October, 1980. Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, learned counsel for the landlord respondent stated that the appellant-tenant has kept the suit premises locked and is not using it and has shifted his business to a shop situated in Mian Bazar locality in Gorakhpur city. Mr. S.K.Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant-tenant countered this statement saying that the appellant is carrying on the business in the suit premises and the statement of Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad is not correct. It was further stated on behalf of respondent to the Court that not only the premises are kept locked but they are in such disuse that the electric connection has been severed and the board of the shop has also been removed.

(3.) In view of the statement and the denial it was difficult to reach some affirmative conclusion one way or the other. We were of the opinion that the facts should not be doctored and truth must not be the casualty in the Court. We, therefore, directed Mr. R. Narasimhan, Registrar (Judicial) to contact the District Judge, Gorakhpur on phone and request him either personally or through his trusted subordinate to ascertain by personal visit whether the shop in question is kept closed and whether it is not being used for the purpose for which it was let and also whether the electric line is disconnected. Simultaneously he was requested to visit Mian Bazar locality to ascertain whether the appellanttenant has started his business in a shop in that locality with board placed on the shop.